Political Crossfire Forums

[Enoch]

Sailor Moon wrote: Dude, speculate. Whatever. You get it. :!oops:

Speculation is moot.

Are you trying to say that you haven't speculated?

[Selfish_Meme]

UrielsFyre wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: Dude, speculate. Whatever. You get it. :!oops:

Speculation is moot.

Are you trying to say that you haven't speculated?
Maybe she is unaware that she is speculating as well?

[Sailor Moon]

I knew this would come up, and am prepared for it. In fact, I anticipated this before posting that, so heres my rebuttal:

Speculation falls under the terms of something having a chance at occurring. With nearly all preborn humans that are not aborted, being born, and at some point in their life, contributing something to society, I hardly think that "speculating" the common realisation that this will, more likely than not, happen, as a moot point.

When you speculate about something that is very unlikely or even halfway improbable, then the speculation is very much moot.

Shall I educate you on the average number of years a person is on welfare, or do you think you might figure that out on your own?

[Enoch]

Sailor Moon wrote: I knew this would come up, and am prepared for it. In fact, I anticipated this before posting that, so heres my rebuttal:

Speculation falls under the terms of something having a chance at occurring. With nearly all preborn humans that are not aborted, being born, and at some point in their life, contributing something to society, I hardly think that "speculating" the common realisation that this will, more likely than not, happen, as a moot point.

When you speculate about something that is very unlikely or even halfway improbable, then the speculation is very much moot.

Shall I educate you on the average number of years a person is on welfare, or do you think you might figure that out on your own?

Save the condescending retort, Sailor. Your rebuttal is nothing more than a half-reasoned justification of your own speculation while, at the same time, trying to strike down the speculation of others. Sure, provide welfare statistics as much as you want. That won't change anything. You are speculating that this contribution to society will somehow benefit society as a whole. There is no way to know that. Likewise, there is no way to know that it won't benefit society.

Both arguments are speculation, pure and simple.

[Magi]

edited by Gus

[Selfish_Meme]

Sailor Moon wrote: With nearly all preborn humans that are not aborted, being born, and at some point in their life, contributing something to society, I hardly think that "speculating" the common realisation that this will, more likely than not, happen, as a moot point.
What you said in simpler terms is that most humans that are not aborted at some point in their life contribute something to society. This is speculation, because you have no proof. When you have proof it isn't speculation any more but a hypothesis.

[Sailor Moon]

"Can't buy me love" Economist June 21, 1997 p. 29 Review of "What Money
Can't Buy" by Susan Mayer says that study shows that raising the incomes of
the poor from $15,000 to $30,000 year would not have much effect on the
outcomes of the children of the poor.


Also- http://new.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/Test080101.cfm
According to the government’s own data, the typical American, defined as poor by the government, has a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer, a car, air conditioning, a VCR, a microwave, a stereo and a color TV. (Half of the poor own two color TV’s; a third have telephone answering machines.) By his own report, the typical poor individual is able to obtain medical care for himself and his family; he lives in a home that is in good repair and is not over-crowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and in the last year he had sufficient funds to meet his essential needs. While this poor individual’s life is certainly far from opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of poverty conveyed by activists and the press.


· The child poverty rate fell sharply from 20.8 percent in 1995 to 16.3 percent in 2000.

· The black child poverty rate and the poverty rate for children living with single mothers are both at the lowest points in U.S. history.


Anyways, for those of you who are PRO drugs, pro prostitution, pro pornography, and pro all these other things, commonly considered to be criminal, then that is something for you to think about NOT supporting.. rather than hoping for it.

Having a baby does not, by any means automatically determine that the baby will be in poverty, or a criminal, or whatever else.

As you can see, the great majority of the country is working, and sustaining themselves just fine.

Having an abortion simply because you "think" the child "might" become an axe murderer, is as moot as me killing my dog, based on a stipulation that it "might" bite me or someone else.

Dogs dont generally bite. People dont generally commit crimes.

My stipulation is based on common knowledge, not something that "wont generally happen".

[Selfish_Meme]

That is great news, but not however evidence that most of the aborted would have contributed significantly to society.

Sailor Moon wrote: My stipulation is based on common knowledge, not something that "wont generally happen".
Speculation maybe..

[Sailor Moon]

Oh for crying out loud...

[The Grandmaster]

oneofthem wrote: Quote: My position is as it always was. If you’re going to take rights away from a person, you need to give a good reason for doing so, and merely saying there is a life inside without the demonstration that there is isn’t reason enough. I don’t know where you claimed this argument is not about actual rights, but if were suddenly forced to use your body against your will, I believe you’d be saying your “actual” rights were being violated in a heartbeat. The women has actual rights is something you’ve never disputed.

The only time dependence enters into he question is if ones rights are to be compromised, it is dependant on the existence of another being that can have sovereignty over her existing rights
Explain why your wimmin's right is not dependent on the identity of the object *hint hint you know which one. Liek the evaluation of anyone's proper rihts can be without reference to others. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: LIKE ZOMG!!!WTF Get it now?

I have rights, and so do you, we can agree to this, I would assume. Something that does not exist yet, necessarily has no rights. So my…ahem…”wimmin” by virtue of existing with certainty, has the right to body sovereignty. Since we do not know what is inside is a person, how can we say that which we do not know exists is entitled to rights? I do not believe we can. My position is not dependant on the status quo. It is only dependant upon the fact that is one is to be denied rights, there must be a reason to do so.

oneofthem wrote: IT"S NOT A f***ing COURTCASE.

It doesn't need to be.

oneofthem wrote: Thus I could easily say you are trying to take away teh rights of the child, and of ocurse vice versa. Get it?

There is a problem with you saying this.

What child?


oneofthem wrote: Simply saying this be the status quo nd it is superior doesn't cut it. Do you even know what ethics mean? ??????

You're getting frustrated at your lack of ability to make headway here, aren’t you?
If you were enslaved for no reason, would you not find this unethical?

oneofthem wrote: :rotf: skill sharpening debate. go think. actually, forget it. You are hopeless.

Haha. Again, you have nothing but insults to supplement your lack of a solid position, or proper grammar and spelling as well, apparently.

[anselfir]

oh wow, i am speechless.

[The Grandmaster]

oneofthem wrote: oh wow, i am speechless.

Good.

[Plodder]

you are too unclear gm.

[spearsy23]

Plodder wrote: you are too unclear gm.
I understood it fine, take the time to read.

[Plodder]

hmmm. maybe its cause im reading the posts in reverse order....