Kevin's Watch

I meant that you seem very consequent sgtnull. I was not asking you to shut up. You are a dogmatist living by your dogma.

I've tried to make it abundantly clear that I am very strictly pro-Choice like Avatar. I don't like abortions. The thought of it turns my stomach. But I don't think it should be legislated. Not until a lot of other problems are solved, anyway

IMO, calling me pro-Abortion is demeaning as it takes context out of the debate. It would be like me calling someone pro-women-as-chattel.

Syl wrote:I don't like abortions. The thought of it turns my stomach. But I don't think it should be legislated. Not until a lot of other problems are solved, anyway

I agree 100%

Call it what you will. I will, however, reserve my right (excercise my choice) to call myself pro-abortion as in the surgical procedure, as I think euphemisms will get us nowhere. But that's obviously just me.

No, it's not. You can put another vote in the speak accurately and allow us to properly define the terms of the debate column, Prebe!

I have no problem being called anti-abortion.

Plissken wrote:No, it's not. You can put another vote in the speak accurately and allow us to properly define the terms of the debate column, Prebe!

Not quite sure what you are getting at here. I read it as "You are annoying us with your insistence on discussing choice of epithets". Fine. That was the whole point. However, I already explained my reasons for doing so earlier in this thread. This time I am just defending my own right to speak clearly. Sorry if that annoys anyone.

I did restate a point from earlier, which I regret.

Fine. Call it whatever you want. I'm done with this topic.

Prebe wrote:

Plissken wrote:No, it's not. You can put another vote in the speak accurately and allow us to properly define the terms of the debate column, Prebe!

Not quite sure what you are getting at here. I read it as "You are annoying us with your insistence on discussing choice of epithets". Fine. That was the whole point. However, I already explained my reasons for doing so earlier in this thread. This time I am just defending my own right to speak clearly. Sorry if that annoys anyone.

I did restate a point from earlier, which I regret.

Prebe, I think Plissken was agreeing with you. If not, I need to learn Plisspeak.
Basically, I get the impression, and also feel that, labels are the problem. Forget euphemisms, a catch-all label is a debate's worst enemy.

A label implies the same thinking in every case, all the time. Which falsifies a position. Sure, euphemisms tend to "lighten" the impact if you will, and may allow people to hide behind them, but the fact is neither Pro-Choice nor Pro-Life leaves any room for exceptions. Therefore I forever shun labels. I am not Pro-Choice or Pro-life, I simply am.

We should not generalize an individual when giving a specific response to a specific scenario.

FWIW, that's how I read Pliss's post too.

I was about to throw in something about my inadequate knowledge of English when I wrote it.

But perhaps Plisss will enlighten us when he rejoins. It does strike me as a strange sentence.

sgtnull wrote:Duck: do you think we would have millions of abortions if it were not a legal option? has anyone ever counted a million abortions in any year before Roe?

I doubt it. Since it was illegal, I don't think a whole lot of records were kept.

Have you ever dealt with someone after a botched coat-hanger abortion? I have. It was pretty ugly.

then stop the abortions. there is no compelling need for most abortions. personal choice. i hate to sound harsh, but the babies should count.

How do you propose to stop illegal abortions sgtnull?

i'm talking about stopping the legal ones and then prosecuting doctors who perform the nonlegal type.

i'm talking about rebuilding our cities. about better jobs. about affordable housing. of college for our young. of having responsible teaching and... birth control. (that thud is my Church, sorry) of getting rid of the desires of folks to get abortions. of getting men back to work and supporting the families they make.

i know it's a pipe dream, but why not. look where the alternative has gotten us.

no more war. no more letting the rich feed off of us. no more hungry children. no more unloved children.

People who perform abortions with coat hangers are hardly doctors.

Prebe, Plissken was definitely agreeing with you. In fact, he was supporting your desire to define the terms correctly.

Syl, bit abrupt?

SgtNull wrote:...of getting rid of the desires of folks to get abortions...

That is the only way that it's ever gonna happen. And unless you sort that out first, making them illegal with all the will in the world is not going to stop anything. It'll drive it back underground, and we'll be back to the bad old days that Duck mentions. *shudder*

Making them illegal first, is going to give you the exact opposite of no more hungry and unloved children.

--Avatar

Making them illegal first, is going to give you the exact opposite of no more hungry and unloved children.

Couldn't agree more.

About Pliss: I am beginning to get that feeling. Perhaps I was really projecting my feelings of being tired of my own relentlessness onto poor old Plissken. So the language was my only excuse to actually disagree with myself for a change

Maybe. Still, it was colloquial enough to excuse some confusion. Don't let it bother you. (And your English is 100 million times better than my Danish.

--A

I'm not sure I should take that as a compliment
I mean "Danish, ain't that something you eat?"

Edit: "Mmmm... Danish"

Not in your case. (Or mine either for that matter.)

--A