Bingowings said:
You were clearly hip to the hurt this subject churns up when you started this thread, going by the title and yet for whatever reason you wrote what you wrote and let it hang there long enough for me to respond to it (more than microsecond it usually takes someone chirp in about a dead link or a typo).
Yes, I was aware this subject could offend or that I might be offended by it. It
When people give their life experiences on a thread like this it's not attention seeking, it's making a valid point that blanket believers in a non-abortion world ride over or remain ignorant of.
Valid points are pertinent. I very much appreciate his story, as I'm pretty darn sure I've said before, and pointed out that there are many cases where it is appropriate. But I also said that it is not always appropriate
There is a rise in "I believe" politics which frankly disturbs me.
Yes I believe that animals shouldn't be slaughtered by humans for food but I don't politically lobby to limit the rights of meat eaters. I speak my mind when I'm asked but I don't picket restaurants of leather goods shops.
That's wonderful that you exercise your right not to picket. I don't picket either. I speak my mind when the opportunity presents itself. As do you, and not always when asked:
http://originaltrilogy.com/FORUM/topic.cfm/Random-Thoughts/post/525250/#TopicPost525250
And just so you know, if you chose to exercise your right to picket such establishments, I would be equally proud of you. People have a right to advocate for what they believe in, and picketing (with appropriate permissions and permits) is a fine example of such a right. As you and I have discussed numerous times in the past, our morals, our legal system is based very much on morals, which in a a very real sense, without a higher Lawgiver, are ultimately based on "I believe". Sure, the level may be different, and scientific evidence may be used to back up the validity of a claim, but let's look at the near-universally accepted immorality of murder (referring to post-birth people). There is evidence that shows that society functions better without murder. But ultimately, is it really wrong? Some could argue that killing should be more permissible, at least in more instances, as it would allow weaker members of our species to be weeded out and thus strengthen the gene pool and improve the longevity of our species as a whole. But most of us go on the "I believe" feeling that really that is still not right. More subtle could be things like sterilizing those who are genetically flawed, imposing population limits, reducing individual privacy rights, as there are arguments that such produce necessary positive results in spite of the negative repercussions. But "I believe," and I presume you do as well, that such things are not right, and therefore we support and uphold laws against them.
The winter Olympics drew attention to how the Russian Orthodox church is driving politics in that country also the Ugandan 'hang the homos' situation is being fueled by American Christian Evangelists. I'm sure you don't want a death list of women who have aborted pregnancies in your town but it comes from the same reflex against the advances in human rights over religious authority in the last four decades or so.
Yes, there are those who do this. But it seems like a knee-jerk reaction to me to assume that because such extremism is present when looking at an issue from one angle, we must then assume that the extreme opposite view is correct. To me, compromise between moderate views usually presents the most satisfactory results.
If I were a female Doctor who trained under the pretty corrupt regime of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi only to find I now can't leave the house unattended or drive a car let alone find a cure for cancer because some tit with one eye on the bronze age says God says it's dirty, I'd be pretty pissed off.
Similarly I thank fate that I'm not an eleven year old girl raped in Chile and forced to carry full term based on the Catholic church's teaching.
Yep, people do that, governments do that. It's very sad. It's also impertinent to this discussion. I do not advocate that. I do not believe that because others do, we must therefore assume that abortion should be acceptable in most cases. I pointed out Ireland many months ago to you. Such extremism is not present everywhere. And again, just because one extreme is false, it doesn't make the opposite extreme true.
These laws are based on feelings, myths and prejudices not on something measurable or provable.
You might as well bill the same gendered married for the floods in England.
Having a debate about religions or abortion or anything is fine but to expect civility when you call people who place examples of life experiences that challenge 'tummy feel' based ideas as nothing more than appeals for sympathy or attention is astonishingly brass-headed. Even if it is for a limited run and in lieu of alternative phrase.
Oh yeah, I addressed the sympathy thing before. Oh, but then you doubt my sincerity, hence...
You started a thread about good news and reported your happy event, my happy event was a bumper crop of golden carrots. I grow my own food, getting a bumper crop is good news to me. But somehow this is what a dig at you or something?
You can't figure this sort of stuff out with out prompting?
Let me explain why I thought it was a dig.
Bingowings said:
Wouldn't it be funny if the baby had red hair just like my carrots...the colour...I don't have hairy carrots...oh now it sounds rude and weird and I didn't meen too.
To me it occurred that this might have been trying to get back at me. "Oh look, I said something mean, oops I'm sorry, but not really." At the same time, I wasn't sure since you make these silly comments a lot. But you have a tendency to be very oblique, making your points with subtlety, sarcasm, analogy. I honestly don't get what you mean more than just on this occasion (meaning, probably around 50% of the time when you are using such tactics, if not more). I think it's quite fair that I was confused in this case. Since it's obvious you don't believe my phrasing was not what I'd intended, I thought perhaps the underlined phrasing above was meant to illustrate that. Such is your style.