1 edit
@joe-shmo saidThe post I replied to contained a question (you know, those things that
Are you saying Wolfgang is insane ( I think its a given, but I would like to hear it from you directly ), or will you be retracting your statement?
end with a question mark) to which I replied "yes". It also contained a
rhetorical question (distinguished by the exuberant interrobang) which
I did not answer. (One does not answer rhetorical questions.)
English may, or may not, be your first language but this debate is in English
so please practise your reading comprehension before making silly assumptions.
2 edits
@wolfgang59 saidWell, you never answered my last question...it wasn’t rhetorical. I was waiting for you to clarify your position, so I wouldn’t have to read your mind.
The post I replied to contained a question (you know, those things that
end with a question mark) to which I replied "yes". It also contained a
rhetorical question (distinguished by the exuberant interrobang) which
I did not answer. (One does not answer rhetorical questions.)
English may, or may not, be your first language but this debate is in English
so please practise your reading comprehension before making silly assumptions.
In light of that, it wasn’t apparent to me that the second part was exactly rhetorical. It seemed like a doubling down reformation of the original question to me( I don’t care how flippant the punctuation is). One would think since you are such a profound master of the English language a small qualification of your statement is not too much to ask.
Also, I wish to point out that the author himself thought you provided a response the second part! What you interpreted to be rhetorical was obviously not intended to be so.
@zahlanzi saidAre you seriously suggesting humanity is not a species of animal?
Except you're forgetting that in the case of animal abuse, the human performs actions on another entity, actions that are harmful. A pregnant woman drinking alcohol is exercising her right to drink alcohol. A right that you wish to take away because it might hurt a bundle of cells taking vacancy inside her body, body which she is the sole owner of. She is performing actions ...[text shortened]... things is to effectively punish a woman with limiting her freedom because she chose to have a baby.
@joe-shmo saidIt is not my responsibility to guess what the author of gibberish intends.
Also, I wish to point out that the author himself thought you provided a response the second part! What you interpreted to be rhetorical was obviously not intended to be so.
If we all used decent English there would be no mis-understandings.
@athousandyoung saidAre you trying to classifiy mankind for a biology paper? No? Then no, humanity is not an animal.
Are you seriously suggesting humanity is not a species of animal?
We don't have people farms, we don't hunt humans and slaughter them for pelts, abuse against humans isn't prosecuted as animal abuse and we don't keep humans as pets. For every aspect that matters to this discussion, we are not animals, stop trying to divert the subject.
@thelistener saidThere you go then liberals believe in choice and personal agency whilst conservatives believe that government should restrict choice and personal agency.
To me, with the exception of rape and incest, she chose to become a mother when she let herself get pregnant. Libs, being quite liberal, think it is acceptable to give her more choices, about the baby, after that. So, she wanted a baby in her body, and you think it is OK for her to 'change her mind', and stop the beating heart. A distinctive example of liberals' disrega ...[text shortened]... in is still in the womb, while the other twin (child) is in a diaper 5 feet away. A child, or not?
I’m glad we’ve cleared that up.
Just to note though that no form of birth control is infallible and neither are people. Things go wrong and people make mistakes, circumstances can change between the act of intercourse and any given point in a pregnancy. These incontrovertible facts of life render your argument imbecilic
1 edit
@wolfgang59 saidWolf.....look again. The end of my paragraph was ".....He (being the child born first) is a child, and I (child in the womb) am NOT?!?!?!??"
No I did not.
Yet another idiot with reading difficulty.
You asked
If I am a twin, and my brother was born on Monday, as a child, but I was not born until Saturday, 5 days later, was I a child during those 5 extra days in the womb?
And I replied YES.
Your answer to the above was yes. You thus said that I, in the womb, am not a child. Maybe we both had a bad night...I broke my iPad.
The good news is that after about 80,000 posts about whether the blob is a human being or not has finally been resolved. The Forum is un-clogged.
@thelistener saidDid you borrow those question and exclamation marks from below averagejoe, be sure to give them back when your done with them he struggles to finish a sentence without them.
Wolf.....look again. The end of my paragraph was ".....He (being the child born first) is a child, and I (child in the womb) am NOT?!?!?!??"
Your answer to the above was yes. You thus said that I, in the womb, am not a child. Maybe we both had a bad night...I broke my iPad.
The good news is that after about 80,000 posts about whether the blob is a human being or not has finally been resolved. The Forum is un-clogged.
@zahlanzi saidWhat if we just didn't require bars to serve them? If a bartender stalks the woman into the grocery store and physically stops her from buying alcohol, that would be a crime. But requiring the bar-tender to serve her seems like his freedom is being taken away.
no.
i advocate pro choice. I have decided i have no right to tell a woman what to do with her body, regardless if pregnant or not.
It would be hypocritical to ask for women to have the right to terminate her pregnancy but tell her she can't smoke or drink.
@techsouth saidmmmyeah this is the same dumb argument used in the baker baking a gay cake and i am not having this again.
What if we just didn't require bars to serve them? If a bartender stalks the woman into the grocery store and physically stops her from buying alcohol, that would be a crime. But requiring the bar-tender to serve her seems like his freedom is being taken away.
go bother someone else with this
4 edits
@zahlanzi said'Drinking alcohol doesn't 100% lead to birth defects"
Drinking alcohol doesn't 100% lead to birth defects. It depends on chance and it depends on the amount. Are you going to be there to draw the line on how much and when a person can drink? I asked you before, what about eating mayonnaise. What about eating fish possibly containing mercury, again harmful to the child. Are you going to forbid the pregnant woman from eating them ...[text shortened]... feed she also deserve to be punished because most doctors agree breastfeeding is good for the baby?
And driving drunk doesn't 100 percent lead to accidents.
To be clear, I wasn't suggesting it should be illegal for pregnant women to drink. My question was about should businesses have the right to refuse serving alcohol to pregnant women, in the same way they can refuse to serve alcohol to visibly intoxicated people.
I'm not convinced bars should be allowed to refuse serving drinks to pregnant women, I merely think there's at least a reasonable case for it. You and No1 brought up some interesting points.
The one thing I don't like is your belief that an unborn shouldn't be cared for even if the mother intends to keep it. This means you have no problem with a woman *who wants to give birth* smoking crack, weed, etc., because you believe an unborn only deserves consideration after birth. That's illogical if the woman's intent is to keep the unborn, and *not* abort it.
@vivify said"To be clear, I wasn't suggesting it should be illegal for pregnant women to drink. My question was about should businesses have the right to refuse serving alcohol to pregnant women, in the same way they can refuse to serve alcohol to visibly intoxicated people."
'Drinking alcohol doesn't 100% lead to birth defects"
And driving drunk doesn't 100 percent lead to accidents.
To be clear, I wasn't suggesting it should be illegal for pregnant women to drink. My question was about should businesses have the right to refuse serving alcohol to pregnant women, in the same way they can refuse to serve alcohol to visibly intoxicated peopl ...[text shortened]... tion after birth. That's illogical if the woman's intent is to keep the unborn, and *not* abort it.
If you don't advocate for making it illegal, that you would have a hard time enforcing it. I can get behind a limit on the amount of alcohol one could serve pregnant women, but how would that work? Not serve visibly pregnant women more than one glass of wine/beer? How about pregnant women who aren't showing yet? Alcohol is the most detrimental at the end of the first trimester. One baggy blouse and a woman wanting to get alcohol could get it. Would every woman be required to sign a waiver saying she is not pregnant? And if it's not illegal, what's to stop her from lying when asked by the bartender if she is pregnant?
Not to mention the alcohol she can simply buy in any store and drink it at home.
"This means you have no problem with a woman *who wants to give birth* smoking crack, weed, etc., because you believe an unborn only deserves consideration after birth. "
Can't be avoided. If we hold the woman to have sovereignty over her own body then we must accept some women will abuse this right. If not abuse then misuse. What if a pregnant woman attempts suicide? Would she be guilty of attempted murder of her child? What if a pregnant woman goes to work instead of going on maternity leave (which the US doesn't provide) and harms her child? She has to work to feed her child, but she ends up putting it at risk, should she be punished?
At present, the US has way more pressing matters regarding maternity to solve. Get around to giving maternity leave, stop de-funding Planned Parenthood, educate current and future mothers more and this non-issue will pretty much solve itself. Of course there will always be some irresponsible asholes who endanger their children. The point is not to limit the freedom of the vast majority with a solution that won't even solve what you aim to solve and pretty much cannot be implemented.
@thelistener saidYou asked a question prior to that which I answered yes.
Wolf.....look again. The end of my paragraph was ".....He (being the child born first) is a child, and I (child in the womb) am NOT?!?!?!??"
Your answer to the above was yes. You thus said that I, in the womb, am not a child. Maybe we both had a bad night...I broke my iPad.
The good news is that after about 80,000 posts about whether the blob is a human being or not has finally been resolved. The Forum is un-clogged.
I'm not in the habit of answering stupid questions ending in ?!?!?!??.
@kevcvs57 saidI'll suggest in "Site ideas" the idea of rationing.
Did you borrow those question and exclamation marks from below averagejoe, be sure to give them back when your done with them he struggles to finish a sentence without them.
