:( :) :( :) :( :) :(
Not sure how I feel about this. Your work is amazing. All this waiting for amazing edits is just so hard!!! But I look forward to your secret project and your (hopefully) sped up work on your PT edits once you get your new computer. Best of luck to you.
^I'm shocked at you, pat man! Stay on topic! Stay on topic!
I concur with 'Wings. That line could probably be included from ROTJ with a little splicing.
Now with Q2's edits out, I completely agree with removing all references to them in the PT. If only he could have changed their colors and perhaps given a voice, albeit not Anthony Daniels, to 3PO, it really would have further sold the concept and perfected that effect. That way there is no inconsistency with Ben's ANH statement.
darth_ender said:
walkingdork said:
Warbler said:
Monolithium said:
Pro-Choice does not mean Pro-Abortion. It means I am for Choice.
but it must be more than that, in order to be pro choice you either must believe that the fetus does not have the same right to live as you or I do, or you must believe that people have the right to murder.
So you believe that it's murder....but murder that is suddenly okay if rape is involved? How in your mind does rape/incest trump the rights that unborn babies apparently have?
I personally don't think so. However, I do feel that I can be more accommodating on these points, though again, I feel it should not be the default, but rather an option. My reason for this is that when when person's health poses a risk to another, sometimes you have to make a choice. Often, separating conjoined twins is an unfortunate and perhaps arbitrary choice of who will die so the other can live. Considering the potential mental health dangers in rape/incest and what they can ultimately lead to, I am willing to provide the option, especially when it does become so much less clear. But even in cases like this, I feel like abortions should be done earlier than later...much earlier than allowed at the present.
I think abortion is generally a bad idea and if you can avoid it you should. But no part of me thinks it's murder or that an incomplete zygote has any rights. That's how I can come to the conclusion that if you are raped or incest is involved you should be allowed to have an abortion.
In response to the underlined sentence, since a zygote lasts for 4 days (not sure what an incomplete zygote is, but a complete one), is abortion not permitted afterwards? I understand, I'm playing a bit with semantics here, and I suspect you are referring more to a "bunch of cells," not a formed creature with all the emotions and sensations of a more developed person. But still, it's worth considering. At what point do we consider a genetically distinct human worth having human rights? I would prefer to err on the side of caution as much as possible. BTW, I appreciate your first sentence in this paragraph very much (italicized). Even if the country never came round to my way of thinking, I'd be so happy if it at least came around to yours. But the sad truth is that abortions today are simply another form of contraception to far too many.
If I believed that abortion was, without a doubt, murder then there would be no excuse for it. After all, I would never let my children be killed so that I could live. But if the pregnant mother of my potential child was in mortal danger I'd want to have an abortion...and I would not consider it murder.
This is a good point. And I admit I don't liken it exactly to murder. However, I suppose this is more because I don't think most feel they are committing murder, so I'd see them as ignorant killers rather than murderers. But again comparing to my conjoined twins comparison above, sometimes a choice must be made. I'd side with the mother for various reasons: 1) if she dies, the child will die anyway in most cases, unless we're getting later down the road; 2) the needs of other family members are in consideration here as well, considering the death of the mother will probably be much harder on the family than the death of the child; 3) many who say they'd take a bullet for their kids might actually be unable to do so when the time came--and I wouldn't necessarily fault them for it--they may have not had the willpower, but that doesn't mean they didn't love their child unconditionally; 4) the suffering of the mother will be far more than that of the child, and for that reason, when choosing between two lives, I'd choose the one with the more peaceful death.
I wouldn't consider it murder either. I'd consider it the right choice in difficult circumstances. But I don't consider killing born humans always the wrong choice either--there are appropriate times when someone must die. If a killer entered my house with the intent to kill, when it comes down to him or me living, I choose me (sorry Bingo :P). I hope I never have to take another life in any circumstance, but if I have to do it, I'd hope I again make the right choice under difficult circumstances.
Thank you for the very thoughtful post expressing the opposite POV. :)
Quoting myself for C3PS. Note that I don't call it murder, in spite of my passion on the subject. I give various reasons for allowing the mother to live over the child. There are numerous cases where killing is not murder. But in my humble opinion, a human life has already begun at conception, and it should be protected in as many cases as possible. It's a matter of societal perception, and it truly saddens me that too many people discard a child as little more than an excised tumor rather than recognizing that they have indeed ended a distinct individual's life. If Western society simply changed its worldview, then more would be willing to carry children to term, even if they were not interested in keeping the child. It would be a choice reliant on when health is truly at stake, be it mental or physical. It would not simply be a matter of socioeconomics.
walkingdork said:
darth_ender said:
walkingdork said:
I think abortion is generally a bad idea and if you can avoid it you should. But no part of me thinks it's murder or that an incomplete zygote has any rights. That's how I can come to the conclusion that if you are raped or incest is involved you should be allowed to have an abortion.
In response to the underlined sentence, since a zygote lasts for 4 days (not sure what an incomplete zygote is, but a complete one), is abortion not permitted afterwards? I understand, I'm playing a bit with semantics here, and I suspect you are referring more to a "bunch of cells," not a formed creature with all the emotions and sensations of a more developed person.
Yeah, whatever, fetus, fine. They are incomplete people.
But still, it's worth considering. At what point do we consider a genetically distinct human worth having human rights?
Birth!
I would prefer to err on the side of caution as much as possible. BTW, I appreciate your first sentence in this paragraph very much (italicized). Even if the country never came round to my way of thinking, I'd be so happy if it at least came around to yours. But the sad truth is that abortions today are simply another form of contraception to far too many.
and I don't think people should use abortion as a wily nily form of abortion either, but I'm not about to tell how to make that choice. I'm definitely against any law that makes that decision for women.
If I believed that abortion was, without a doubt, murder then there would be no excuse for it. After all, I would never let my children be killed so that I could live. But if the pregnant mother of my potential child was in mortal danger I'd want to have an abortion...and I would not consider it murder.
This is a good point. And I admit I don't liken it exactly to murder. However, I suppose this is more because I don't think most feel they are committing murder, so I'd see them as ignorant killers rather than murderers. But again comparing to my conjoined twins comparison above, sometimes a choice must be made. I'd side with the mother for various reasons: 1) if she dies, the child will die anyway in most cases, unless we're getting later down the road; 2) the needs of other family members are in consideration here as well, considering the death of the mother will probably be much harder on the family than the death of the child; 3) many who say they'd take a bullet for their kids might actually be unable to do so when the time came--and I wouldn't necessarily fault them for it--they may have not had the willpower, but that doesn't mean they didn't love their child unconditionally; 4) the suffering of the mother will be far more than that of the child, and for that reason, when choosing between two lives, I'd choose the one with the more peaceful death.
I think you and I have probably talked about this to death so I won't comment further. My statement was address to warbler because I don't think I've heard his response that my thinking (although I believe several have brought it up already).
I wouldn't consider it murder either. I'd consider it the right choice in difficult circumstances. But I don't consider killing born humans always the wrong choice either--there are appropriate times when someone must die. If a killer entered my house with the intent to kill, when it comes down to him or me living, I choose me (sorry Bingo :P). I hope I never have to take another life in any circumstance, but if I have to do it, I'd hope I again make the right choice under difficult circumstances.
Self defense is one thing but what is your feeling about people after the fact? What if you aren't home when someone comes into your house and kills a member of your family? when they convict him/her 6 months later with live in prison without parole would you demand he be put to death?
I probably would I don't have a big problem with capital punishment for 1st degree murder (when there is ZERO chance he is innocent). Although when I hear cases of the victim's family demanding that capital punishment not be used I think they should have the right to be heard.
Yes, I favor capital punishment, pretty much exactly as described here, including hearing the desires of the victim's family.
Thank you for the very thoughtful post expressing the opposite POV. :)
Up yours pal. ;)
Back to you and stick like glue :P I'm glad we get along so much better :) In any case, I wanted to respond to this, but now that I'm rereading, there's not much to say. I'll merely be repeating myself on so many points.
I need a pony.
A false dichotomy is not proof enough. I have already argued on the last page (pretty effectively I feel, and without any response forgot that he did respond, and I'm the one who needs to address him directly) against walkingdork's premise. But let's look at it a different way. Why must we choose between a child having all the rights of a born child, or absolutely none of them? Why not all the rights, or simply most of them, trumped only in a few instances? Arguments that state you must accept all or nothing of something are usually overly-simplistic. Only a Sith deals in absolutes ;)
Had a relapse, but an intervention spared any further pain. Recommitting as of now :)
Oh, c'mon Bingo. We know this is another one of your smelly socks ;)
ALLOL!!! That alone made it all worth it!
I don't know how much of a conversation we could have if we all stayed on topic.
I thought you said Kirk was hotter. Why would you want to be associated with Darth Picard?
Found a new one
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/user-profile.cfm/DarthBoMan/user/2376/
No harm intended. I thought your name was perfectly similar to my favorite superhero (Batman). Didn't you try to make a similar name?
You see, Pat Man would have been able to communicate with me telepathically. You fall short of the superhero mark ;)
I'm supposed to be staying away from this site, but I've always been excited about this project. Happy to see you're in the home stretch :)
My first sock, deleted after a single innocuous post. I feel like a child who just got busted over my first tiny crime, sitting with a big stupid grin on my face :D
LOL. Well, I had every intention of admitting I was #3, but I guess the gig was up faster than I expected. I had no malintent for the original, which should have been obvious to all who read my post, which was identical to pat man's own. It was intended to be a test of the theory, but my apologies if I offended. :)
For the record, while we're happy about the Luke, treadwell, vaporator scene being released in color at a proper frame rate, it is notable the the crummy, b&w version is actually a different take...for all those completionists out there...
Davnes007 said:
Are we talking about the Real Pat Man?....or Fake Pat Man?
Well, Spider-man has a clone, so I guess we could look at both!
Where is Part Deux anyway? Not seeing enough of him.
Just making a brief visit, and I had to start a new thread. If Pat Man were a superhero, what powers would he have?
Starting the list:
Keen observation powers - he'd be able to decipher the most amazingly complex situations in mere moments!
Confuse his enemies - under interrogation, his statements would baffle his enemies and sending them running in circles!
Time warp - in order to complete all his tasks, he could slow down time, apparently finding time to accomplish even the most mundane tasks in a single day!
Quick! To the Pat Cave!
Hey! What about my TPM 13th anniversary thread?!