Why Do You Post In The Abortion Threads?

[Ikari]

It couldn't be a lie, since I kept throwing your interpretation back at you.

Is it really such a personal struggle, to admit that you made a mistake?

It's not my interpretation. Nowhere in my layout of empathy does it say that pregnancy is not real, that it has no real effects. Nor does it say that a man can get pregnant by thinking about it. That does not fall out rationally from my argument. YOU MADE IT UP. You completely lied and now you continue with your intellectually dishonest claims that have zero logic and reason to back it up.

Poor show. If this is as far as your integrity goes...it's pretty pathetic.

[Jerry]

I did not say that being a parent was comparable to the life of a deployed soldier. I said that forced pregnancy and childbirth were involuntary servitude/forced labor, which they literally are, and that if the forcing agency is the government, which it would be if abortion were made illegal, then to justify that forced or involuntary servitude, the government would have to treat it as paid employment. Since the only type of forced employment the government has imposed in recent historical memory is the military draft, I made such a comparison.

Totally bogus and invalid comparison.

[NoC_T]

It's not my interpretation. Nowhere in my layout of empathy does it say that pregnancy is not real, that it has no real effects. Nor does it say that a man can get pregnant by thinking about it. That does not fall out rationally from my argument. YOU MADE IT UP. You completely lied and now you continue with your intellectually dishonest claims that have zero logic and reason to back it up.

Poor show. If this is as far as your integrity goes...it's pretty pathetic.

Please continue to attribute to me, comments I have not made. That is your prerogative, of course.

Must I really re-post your previous quotes? I'd sooner not embarrass you any further.

Your interpretation of empathy allows for the experience of pregnancy by anyone, regardless of gender, since you claim that it needn't involve any awareness of any feeling/sensation specific to pregnancy. For the umpteenth time, your definition is at odds with both my own, and that of the established definition, as proven by how your definition conflicts with that of even the dictionary.

Just of curiosity, how long must we go around in circles? I've already asked you if you're attempting to offset any embarrassment, by burying your original comments, via repetition of denial.

[choiceone]

The draft is quite comparable to slavery. The state of being a non-person human in the womb who can be killed on a whim of their owner is quite comparable to slavery.


The state of having laws prohibiting the action killing of other humans is not comparable to slavery, at all. It is the norm. Permitting it if the victim is your own offspring is a logical and moral aberration that requires remedy.

Bring this up again and I'll just keep saying that forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy puts her, not the ZEF, in a state of involuntary servitude. The ZEF is nothing like a slave of the woman because it does no work for her - it lives "like a parasite." In contrast, the woman and her body house, feed, and function as life-support for the ZEF - that is work for the ZEF. If the government forces a woman to do it, she is in involuntary servitude to the government.

[choiceone]

Totally bogus and invalid comparison.

If you really thought so, you would give rational reasons for why it is invalid instead of just saying "bogus," etc. It's actually a good enough argument that the use of insults has been resorted to.

[Ikari]

Please continue to attribute to me, comments I have not made. That is your prerogative, of course.

Must I really re-post your previous quotes? I'd sooner not embarrass you any further.

Your interpretation of empathy allows for the experience of pregnancy by anyone, regardless of gender, since you claim that it needn't involve any awareness of any feeling/sensation specific to pregnancy. For the umpteenth time, your definition is at odds with both my own, and that of the established definition, as proven by how your definition conflicts with that of even the dictionary.

Just of curiosity, how long must we go around in circles? I've already asked you if you're attempting to offset any embarrassment, by burying your original comments, via repetition of denial.

You ain't embarrassing me. Nothing in that pile of lies you ultimately tried to post is true. Don't forget to reporst YOUR arguments as well.

My interpretation of empathy allows anyone with sufficient empathy to intellectually identifity with those whom are pregnant. That's not the same as actually being pregnant, which is what you're trying to say. What you say does not logically follow, nor is it in line with my argument.

YOU ARE CONTINUALLY LYING TO TRY TO MAKE YOUR POINT.

[NoC_T]

You ain't embarrassing me. Nothing in that pile of lies you ultimately tried to post is true. Don't forget to reporst YOUR arguments as well.

My interpretation of empathy allows anyone with sufficient empathy to intellectually identifity with those whom are pregnant. That's not the same as actually being pregnant, which is what you're trying to say. What you say does not logically follow, nor is it in line with my argument.

YOU ARE CONTINUALLY LYING TO TRY TO MAKE YOUR POINT.

We've been over this. Empathy is indeed an intellectual exercise. But one that, of necessity, includes the component of feeling/sensation. And 'identification' (again, by definition). Given that certain of those feelings/sensations are peculiar to pregnancy, and involve the requisite physiology, no empathy is possible.

Your insistence that empathy fits the bill, by virtue solely of it's intellectual nature, simply fails.

AND THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT!

[Jerry]

If you really thought so, you would give rational reasons for why it is invalid instead of just saying "bogus," etc. It's actually a good enough argument that the use of insults has been resorted to.

I already did:

I don't think military draft has anything to do with abortion in any respect. I think the analogy is false because in pregnancy a woman experience neither 'the brotherhood' nor combat. The 2 are totally incomparable.

[Ikari]

We've been over this. Empathy is indeed an intellectual exercise. But one that, of necessity, includes the component of feeling/sensation. And 'identification' (again, by definition). Given that certain of those feelings/sensations are peculiar to pregnancy, and involve the requisite physiology, no empathy is possible.

Your insistence that empathy fits the bill, by virtue solely of it's intellectual nature, simply fails.

AND THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT!

There's need to shout when one is so intellectually dishonest that they can continue a debate only through the repetition of lies and ignorance; such as you have done in this thread.

Empathy being a purely intellectual endeavor does not lead to thought producing pregnancy or any of the other absurd claims you wished to make. You have not countered any argument, you have made no rational plea. You have instead stated something completely absurd and logically inconsistent and tried to claim it came from me; and that absurdity, that intellectually dishonest argument has been the only thing you can clutch to in order to try to combat my argument, based on actual definition of empathy being intellectual identification or vicarious experience.

[NoC_T]

There's need to shout when one is so intellectually dishonest that they can continue a debate only through the repetition of lies and ignorance; such as you have done in this thread.

Empathy being a purely intellectual endeavor does not lead to thought producing pregnancy or any of the other absurd claims you wished to make. You have not countered any argument, you have made no rational plea. You have instead stated something completely absurd and logically inconsistent and tried to claim it came from me; and that absurdity, that intellectually dishonest argument has been the only thing you can clutch to in order to try to combat my argument, based on actual definition of empathy being intellectual identification or vicarious experience.

Erm, the necessity of identification was my own inclusion, and one that you'd previously contested. It pleases me, that you now recognise your error.

And your own interpretation allows for pregnancy irrespective of gender, since it requires no physical basis, and is purely intellectual. There is no difference, don't you see that? Where you remove the requirement for the physical component, there is no pregnancy; hence anyone can be pregnant, as per your definition. I know for a fact you're intelligent enough to comprehend this, which is why your little tantrum here looks dishonest. I understand that your dishonesty won't allow you to retract your earlier comments, but you could make an admission.

If not, then you must repeat yourself, in the vain hope that repetition alone will suffice to unburden you of your previous error.