Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Goodbye, Marieve.

Expand Messages
  • phesten2002
    It seems that I understand your point very well. If you took the time to read my postings carefully, and try to understand the definitions of the terms I am
    Message 1 of 21 , Jul 1 8:34 AM
      It seems that I understand your point very well. If you took the
      time to read my postings carefully, and try to understand the
      definitions of the terms I am using we could have gotten farther. I
      take very great pains to make sure my answers are logically
      sound. And I also take great pains to try to understand the
      person I am talking to.
      What strikes me is that you seem to not know your own points
      very well. What I have done is taken your fundamental
      philosophies, applied them evenly throughout all stages of
      human development, and viewed the consequenses.
      For instance, your view that the quality of life is more important
      that life itself leads to some horrible ideas. But you cannot see it.
      You must learn to see without dogmatic lenses.
      However, not only because of this, I think it is best not to
      continue because not only you have misunderstood nearly
      everything I have posted (which I have specifically tried to pay the
      most attention to clarity), but you are also quite rude and
      insulting.
      Suggesting that I or others do not know how to read (etc.) is
      juvenile, condescending, and gets us no where fast. Instead of
      an intellectual response, you opt for the ad hominem attack.
      Fine. If that's the way you operate, okay. But I am not required to
      sit through it.
      Take care, Marieve. Thanks for your time. I wish you the best.

      .......Steve.
    • hatebitchney
      Well, sorry I have been rude, but that was because I didn t feel like you read my posts...I was feeling like you were only answering some of the things I said
      Message 2 of 21 , Jul 1 11:56 AM
        Well, sorry I have been rude, but that was because I didn't feel like
        you read my posts...I was feeling like you were only answering some
        of the things I said without caring about the explanations I had
        given already. That was a bit frustrating you know...I mean, there
        are a lot of things that I had to repeat many times because you never
        took them into consideration. You never gave any comment on them and
        you were saying that my ideas were wrong while I was explaining
        clearly that they were not. It seemed to me that you ignored my
        answers to your comments to ask your questions again and again, but
        only in a different way. That is why I said some things that were not
        very kind...You probably would've done the same thing if I had
        ignored most of your comments and I had answered only what I wanted
        to answer...Unlike you, I did read your posts carefully...I do know
        my own points very well, it's just that you did not read carefully
        and you were not able to understand my points, otherwise you wouldn't
        have said all the things you said in your last posts. You
        misunderstood most of the things I said and you accuse me of not
        knowing my own points ?? Sorry but it was a bit normal for me to be
        rude, because I was feeling that you did not respect my points
        either...You did not take my fundamental philosophies to apply them
        to all stages of human-ness because you didn't understand my
        fundamental philosophies. You didn't understand what I meant by
        saying that quality of life was more important than life in itself,
        and I did explain it in my last post, but instead of commenting what
        I said, you ignored what I said and accused me again of having a
        point of view that leads to horrible idea. How can you be mad at me
        for asking you if you can read when you completely ignore my
        comments ??????? I did answer your comments about quality of life,
        why are you talking as if I didn't say anything ?? You are completely
        ignoring the comments that you don't like or that you can't answer
        and then you tell me that my ideas fail ?? Please, try to respect me
        more and I won't be so rude with you. Take into consideration every
        of my idea before saying that they don't make sense, because you were
        really insulting me. If you want to end this conversation, it's your
        problem, I don't mind, but if you do respect what other people think
        and if YOU know your own points very well, you should have the
        decency to answer this message and maybe the last message I posted,
        too.

        *Marieve*



        --- In abortiondebaters@y..., phesten2002 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
        > It seems that I understand your point very well. If you took the
        > time to read my postings carefully, and try to understand the
        > definitions of the terms I am using we could have gotten farther. I
        > take very great pains to make sure my answers are logically
        > sound. And I also take great pains to try to understand the
        > person I am talking to.
        > What strikes me is that you seem to not know your own points
        > very well. What I have done is taken your fundamental
        > philosophies, applied them evenly throughout all stages of
        > human development, and viewed the consequenses.
        > For instance, your view that the quality of life is more
        important
        > that life itself leads to some horrible ideas. But you cannot see
        it.
        > You must learn to see without dogmatic lenses.
        > However, not only because of this, I think it is best not to
        > continue because not only you have misunderstood nearly
        > everything I have posted (which I have specifically tried to pay
        the
        > most attention to clarity), but you are also quite rude and
        > insulting.
        > Suggesting that I or others do not know how to read (etc.) is
        > juvenile, condescending, and gets us no where fast. Instead of
        > an intellectual response, you opt for the ad hominem attack.
        > Fine. If that's the way you operate, okay. But I am not required
        to
        > sit through it.
        > Take care, Marieve. Thanks for your time. I wish you the best.
        >
        > .......Steve.
      • phesten2002
        ...Thanks for responding. ...Please understand, the reason why I did not respond to every point and comment you made was because I have both a job, a family,
        Message 3 of 21 , Jul 2 8:41 AM
          ...Thanks for responding.

          ...Please understand, the reason why I did not respond to every
          point and comment you made was because I have both a job, a
          family, and in fact, a life, and if I were to respond to every and all
          comments (whether it was a digression or not) I would be here
          for quite a while.

          ...What I did try to do was cut the most clear and concise
          statements made by you and answer to them directly. In fact, that
          is why I quoted you so much, just so I wouldn't misrepresent you.

          ...I have read and studied this topic quite a bit. I do not think that
          I misunderstood you at all. Why? Because as I said earlier, I
          have studied the very same points you made many times. Maybe
          in showing you the logical conclusions you made the usual
          knee-jerk reaction, "That's not what I meant!" But in fact, if you
          look at what you are saying and bring them, without bias, to their
          logical conclusion you might see that IS what you are saying.

          ...Just so you know, I wasn't always a pro-lifer, I was a choicer
          once. I even coerced my one time girlfriend to have an abortion.
          But, I can now see the faults of my old views and the wrong that I
          have done. At the time, I know I was blinded to reason. I wanted
          what I wanted and that was that. I never gave a care for what was
          "right."

          ...And that is like people all over. We often choose our sides
          first and look for reasons to justify them later. We are very often
          not interested in the truth of a thing but proving ourselves right. It
          is the classic "us against them" mentality.

          ...But in any case,...

          ...Even if you were frustrated, this is no reason to insult people.
          That is no way to find out what is true. It builds walls.

          ...Have I ever been frustrated in trying to get my point across?
          Honestly, I'd have to say "no." Why? Because I know that I have
          done the best I can, and not everyone will agree or even
          understand. If you go into it with that mentality, you won't get
          frustrated.

          ...As I said before, I am not your enemy. I'm just a person with a
          different view.

          ...If you want to continue, and help me to clearly understand
          your view (if in fact I am mistaken), then that is cool. BUT I won't
          take insults. That only means that you are not respecting me,
          and therefore not hearing me.

          ...Let me know what you want. Talk to you soon, Marieve.

          ...Steve.
        • hatebitchney
          ... all ... Well I have a life too, you know, but I still am able to answer all of your points, because we cannot have a conversation that will go somewhere if
          Message 4 of 21 , Jul 2 10:06 PM
            --- In abortiondebaters@y..., phesten2002 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
            > ...Thanks for responding.
            >
            > ...Please understand, the reason why I did not respond to every
            > point and comment you made was because I have both a job, a
            > family, and in fact, a life, and if I were to respond to every and
            all
            > comments (whether it was a digression or not) I would be here
            > for quite a while.

            Well I have a life too, you know, but I still am able to answer all
            of your points, because we cannot have a conversation that will go
            somewhere if we don't take into consideration everything that each
            other says. This doesn't mean to take every sentence and answer it,
            but just at least to take every comment into consideration before
            replying.


            > ...What I did try to do was cut the most clear and concise
            > statements made by you and answer to them directly. In fact, that
            > is why I quoted you so much, just so I wouldn't misrepresent you.

            Yeah, but you took one sentence I said, and you misinterpreted it.
            You took one general statement I said, without caring about all the
            explanations that followed that statement. You interpreted my
            statements without reading exactly what they meant. I mean, it's easy
            to take one sentence and to say it means whatever you want. And that
            is what you did, and that's why I was little pissed off. I just felt
            like everything I had said had been ignored and I had to repeat again
            what I had tried so hard to make clear.


            > ...I have read and studied this topic quite a bit. I do not
            think that
            > I misunderstood you at all. Why? Because as I said earlier, I
            > have studied the very same points you made many times. Maybe
            > in showing you the logical conclusions you made the usual
            > knee-jerk reaction, "That's not what I meant!" But in fact, if you
            > look at what you are saying and bring them, without bias, to their
            > logical conclusion you might see that IS what you are saying.

            Well, I think I should know that you misunderstood me. I know what my
            beliefs are, you know, and they were not at all what you said they
            were. The points you have studied were not the same I talked about,
            because the points you mentionned had nothing to do with my own
            points. You said something like is an autistic person who is
            dependent on his brother less human. Where, please tell me, where in
            my posts did I ever say something that could have made you believe
            that I thought that people who were not able to take care of
            themselves were less human ? Where, tell me ? I wanna know where you
            misunderstood me. I would never consider in such an example that the
            autistic is less human, and if you say that what I said meant that,
            then you are admitting that you misunderstood me. There is something
            I don't like about you, sorry to tell you, but it's that you don't
            respect my opinion. You come and say things like "I know you're
            wrong, I'll show you you're wrong, you've said that was not what you
            meant because you realized that you were wrong!" I mean, of course I
            am insulted when you say such things. How can we have a decent
            conversation if you misunderstand everything I say and then come and
            tell me "no, I did not misunderstand you, you said that it was not
            what you meant because now you realize that you were wrong." Please,
            I'm asking you as politely as possible, don't ever tell me again that
            you didn't misunderstand me when I say you did. I think I know what I
            believe. And I think I know when someones misunderstands me. You
            didn't show me any logical conclusion because you talked about a
            point I had never mentionned. All you said about autistic people and
            others like that had nothing to do with my beliefs, and please, in
            your next posts, don't tell me that it had something to do with my
            beliefs. Try to respect me, and by telling me that you know better
            than myself what I meant, you are not respecting me. I really hope
            that you can try to understand that you DID misinterpreted what I
            said.

            > ...Even if you were frustrated, this is no reason to insult
            people.
            > That is no way to find out what is true. It builds walls.

            True. But you have to realize that you insulted me, without knowing
            it probably, by saying you didn't misinterpreted me when I say you
            did.

            > ...If you want to continue, and help me to clearly understand
            > your view (if in fact I am mistaken), then that is cool. BUT I
            > won't take insults. That only means that you are not respecting me,
            > and therefore not hearing me.

            I sure would like to continue, and I ask you too to try to respect my
            opinions a little bit more, and quit saying things like "I'll show
            you you're wrong". You can say that you believe that I'm wrong, but
            please don't force your beliefs on me, because I am not forcing my
            beliefs on you.
            So, I will now explain to you in which way you misunderstood me.
            You thought I was saying that any human who is dependent in any way
            from anyone was less human. You misunderstood me there. I made the
            difference between physical, psychological and social dependence. The
            autistic guy is psychologically and socially dependent on someone,
            and that someone can be anyone. If the person who is taking care of
            the autistic guy dies, then someone else will take care of him. The
            autistic guy is not physically dependent on anyone, and physical
            dependence means that he needs to be connected to another human being
            because his own body is not able to survive on its own. His own body
            needs another body, needs the functions of another human body because
            his own body is not able to live alone, which, we agree, is not the
            case for the autistic guy. He is however socially and psychologically
            dependent on someone, which is not the same as physically dependent,
            and that is also where you misunderstood me. It's the same for a
            baby. A baby is socially and psychologically dependent on someone,
            but its body can survive on its own, its body has everything its
            needs in order to survive. The baby's physical functions, and the
            autistic guy's physical fonctions work perfectly well, thus they are
            physically independent from any other human's physical body (and not
            from any other human's care or presence). You misinterpreted me by
            thinking that physical dependence included social and psychological
            dependence, but it doesn't. It's the same for any old person who
            cannot eat alone anymore. That person is socially dependent on
            someone to fee them, but that person's body is not dependent on any
            other human's body, that person's body can survive on its own,
            because the body of that person is functional alone, without the need
            of another human BODY (and not without another human's CARE). When I
            say physically dependent, it means dependent on the body functions of
            another human being, and not dependent on the care of another person.
            And so, that is why I was saying that only fetuses needed to stay
            connected to another human body. Only fetuses are physically
            dependent on another human body. Only fetuses' bodies cannot survive
            on their own. If an fetus is taken out of the mother's womb,it will
            die, and no matter if someone takes care of it socially. That is the
            main point that you misunderstood. That is why I never said anything
            that meant that autistic people and babies were less human. It was
            only to show the main difference between fetuses and any other born
            human being.
            Another point you didn't quite comment is the fact that if we have an
            example where human A needs to stay connected to human B in order to
            survive, we can in no way force human B to stay connected to A. Why ?
            Because that would be denying B's right to life. But we are not
            denying A's right to life, because A cannot ask for another human
            life to be put away for his own life. That would be unfair. Human B
            is not killing human A, he's just not accepting to put his life away
            to let him live. Now, I know you will say that in such an example, B
            is not doing something to save A's life, while in an abortion, the
            mother IS doing something not to save the fetus' life. But let's see
            another example. Let's say that we connect human B to A first, and
            then we ask B to stay connected to A in order to save his life. If B
            disconnects himself from A, he will, just as for an abortion, do
            something not to save A, but still, could we say that he killed A by
            disconnecting himself ? No ! Why ? Because B, just like any other
            human, has the right to make his own life come before any other
            human's life. In this case, we are not denying A's right to life, we
            are only giving B's right to life. A cannot demand that someone's
            life be ruined for his own life, because no one is obliged to give up
            their life for any other human. It is a human right. By forcing B to
            stay connected to A, we would deny B's right to life, and we would
            give A a right that he doesn't have, that right being to ruin
            anyone's life in order to stay alive. No one owns such a right, not
            even a fetus. The woman who has an abortion just disconnects herself
            from that fetus, knowing that it will not survive, because she does
            not want to put her life aside for that thing. It might be sad, yeah,
            that is true, but just as we could never force any human to stay
            connected to human A to make him survive, we could never force a
            woman to stay connected to a fetus to make it survive. The fetus'
            rights interfere with the woman's rights, because she is the host,
            she is what makes it survive, but the woman's rights does not
            interfere with the fetus's rights, because she just disconnects
            herself from it, she just stops making it survive, because she
            chooses her life over the life of the fetus, and that is a
            fundamental right that every human being should have.
            I sure hope I made myself clearer this time. That's why it might seem
            like I repeated myself a few times, I just wanted to make sure you
            got my point this time. I'd appreciate if, in your next post, you
            could comment on more of the things I say, and if you could stop just
            taking one sentence, because I don't resume my ideas in one
            sentence..lol..I like developping them through a lot of sentences.
            You'd better not even quote me, and just talk about everything I say,
            about the main idea (which is not resumed in one sentence). And
            please, again, if you think you misunderstands me, ask me questions
            to make my point clearer to you, just to make sure that we do not
            misinterpret what each other says.


            *Marieve*
          • Adelaide Swaydyn
            I have a question in relation to this scenario.... Is this before the time of a C-Section or will that kill the mother too? It would seem to me that the
            Message 5 of 21 , Jul 3 7:40 AM
              I have a question in relation to this scenario....
              Is this before the time of a C-Section or will that
              kill the mother too? It would seem to me that the
              scenario is flawwed because there are ways to deliver
              a baby that aren't "natural."
              Either way, if it comes down to the mother's life or
              the life of the baby, there are far more factors that
              would come into play before one could truly debate the
              topic. Every situation is unique in itself.
              For instance, how far along is the mother? That would
              help to determine whether the baby could sustain
              itself or be sustained with the use of machines.
              Personally, being nine months pregnant with my 3rd
              child, I could see no reason tochoose me over my
              child. However, when I was younger, I did just that
              for all the wrong reasons and it effects everyday of
              my life. So perhaps I am biased, but I felt I should
              state my opinion on the matter.
              If I haven't read your question correctly, forgive
              me, I am a stay at home mom and I'm sure I have lost a
              few IQ points :) lol
              Adelaide

              --- hatebitchney <hatebitchney@...> wrote:
              > Euh, why did you give an answer to a question that
              > you didn't even
              > understand ?? My question was that the woman WILL
              > die if she gives
              > birth to the baby !!!!!!!!!! It's not the baby who
              > will die, i's the
              > MOTHER !!!!!!!!!! And can't you read ?? I just said
              > : "she has to
              > choose literally between her own life and the life
              > of the baby" ! Is
              > that too hard a question to understand ?? I hate
              > when people just
              > don't read before posting something !!!!!!!!!
              >
              > *Marieve*
              >
              > --- In abortiondebaters@y..., forever_arckangel
              > <no_reply@y...> wrote:
              > >
              > >
              > > {I know, that is why I'm in favor of abortions in
              > any case. Now, I
              > > have a question for you.
              > > What if a girl gets pregnant and because of a rare
              > disease, is told
              > > that if she gives birth to the baby,
              > > she will die and she doesn't even have a chance to
              > survive.
              > >
              > > In other words, she has to choose literally
              > between her own life
              > and
              > > the life of the baby,
              > > you still think she should be obliged to die
              > because of a fetus?}
              > >
              > >
              > > In this case, why not delivering the baby alive?
              > > Instead of aborting the fetus,
              > > the doctors can give the woman a drug that induces
              > labour.
              > >
              > > Once born, they'd just have to fight for his/her
              > life.
              > > The baby may die, the baby may survive.
              > >
              > > Don't you think it's a better solution?
              > > Whether the baby makes it or not, the woman won't
              > die.
              > >
              > >
              > > Israell
              >
              >
              >


              __________________________________________________
              Do You Yahoo!?
              Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
              http://sbc.yahoo.com
            • phesten2002
              ...Thanks for replying. ...Forgive me if I have offended. ...I will answer your posting with the finest toothed comb I can find, but it will take me a few
              Message 6 of 21 , Jul 3 10:10 AM
                ...Thanks for replying.

                ...Forgive me if I have offended.

                ...I will answer your posting with the finest toothed comb I can
                find, but it will take me a few days. (What with the holiday coming
                on.) So,... hang in there.

                ...Peace to you, Marieve. Talk to you soon.

                ....Steve.
              • hatebitchney
                It s ok, I ll wait for your reply. *Marieve*
                Message 7 of 21 , Jul 3 8:39 PM
                  It's ok, I'll wait for your reply.

                  *Marieve*
                  --- In abortiondebaters@y..., phesten2002 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                  > ...Thanks for replying.
                  >
                  > ...Forgive me if I have offended.
                  >
                  > ...I will answer your posting with the finest toothed comb I can
                  > find, but it will take me a few days. (What with the holiday coming
                  > on.) So,... hang in there.
                  >
                  > ...Peace to you, Marieve. Talk to you soon.
                  >
                  > ....Steve.
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.