To anyone reading Meg's post. I offer this as a rebuttal.

Quote from Meg "Bosk,you've abandoned all logic and reason with this post...desperation setting in?" The point is clear here. I am being personally dismissed as illogical.

Lie from Meg " dismissing your arguments is hardly striking you…even metaphorically. Neither you nor I are obliged to respond to anything, Don’t pose irrational scenarios and be insulted when they’re dismissed as such."

So according to Meg only my SCENARIOS & NOT myself were being dismissed. Not exactly what she said before is it?

Quote from me "Dismissing someone's argument without giving reasons is NOT a reasoned argument."

In reference to 1st lie "I said that YOU were illogical"

She clearly wrote both.

Lie by Meg "Your Lie-1b ‘Dismissing someone's argument without giving reasons"

Another lie of Meg's "there are plenty of valid reasons given, as you admitted FINALLY in Lie 2" It should be noted I have agreed that Meg's arguments were valid. On the contrary, right from the point at which she gave them I have argued that they were INVALID.

Response to my argument given on 2nd April by Meg "Bosk,you've abandoned all logic and reason with this post...desperation setting in? " No reasons given.

Response to My argument given 3rd April by Meg "Neither you nor I are obliged to respond to anything, don’t pose irrational scenarios and be insulted when they’re dismissed as such." No reasons given.

In both cases there was merely an assertion "this is illogical" yet Meg claims to have provided plenty of reasons.

Next lie 7th April - "You clearly have a problem with comprehension and-or truth, Bosk…you’re not the only poster I responded to in that post…I provided a more complete response, when my 24-hr-limit expired."

I originally posted the analogical argument 1st April.

Meg replied 2nd April [no reasons given], 3rd April [no reasons given], invalid reasons provided April 4th. 3 days after My post & 2 days after Meg's initial reply.

I will leave it to any reader to decide whether Meg or myself is the one lying.

For any who are still reading this thread I repeat the argument.

Imagine a woman goes out on a date. She takes all the necessary precautions but her date attacks her & she wakes up to find herself secured to a table providing a blood supply to the guy's infant son.

He explains that his son [for various reasons] requires her blood for the span of nine months. At the end of that time she will be released.

Now the woman is obviously frightened & is there against her will. Do you agree that, if given the chance, she has the right to escape?
if you hold that human life [especially infant life] MUST be preserved then your answer should be no. If on the other hand you hold that the important thing is the free choice of the woman then your answer should be yes.

Meg argues that we must first know the name & nature of the disease the infant suffers before we can make a moral decision. Should that make any difference? How will knowing the name & nature of a disease help you make a MORAL decision? Will your moral decision change if I supply you with the name of a particularly nasty disease? it shouldn't. Unless you are acknowledging limits on the life principle.

Yabby,

“MJ, the difference in abortion rates between England and Holland has long been explained, there is a huge difference in school sex education,…”

So you increasingly accept that availability of contraception doesn’t prevent abortion by itself but hypothesise that sex education makes the difference?

Of the two current hypotheses namely education or religion my experience with Dutch people suggests the latter as negativity to abortion seems to be present and I doubt that sex education would teach that.

”Abortion rates are low in Europe as contraception has been freely available for decades, its a pragmatic attitude to life and its problems. “

What about the UK?

”The Americans are the most religious Western country of all and what we see is that in the bible belt..”

Please provide more details so that I can comment.

”You might not like what the GMI publishes, you might quibble on the edges about a couple of stats, but the fundamentals of what they are saying are correct and can be seen in worldwide trends.”

Their own stats contradict them. They even did a list to show “worldwide trends” which cherry picked to the extent of even omitting stuff they had elsewhere on the page ie. failing to list Korea. Naturally I am suspicious about motive as it so clearly contradicted the view they were pushing. 40 years of contraceptive use achieved a whopping 80% contraceptive rate associated with a 20% abortion rate which is the original rate before contraceptive use was even 10% It is obvious why Australia didn’t get a mention.

”Fact is that most US Catholics ignore church teachings on contraception and the abortion rate for catholics is only slightly lower then for others. So even within the Catholic Church and its followers, your views are regarded as nonsense.

http://www.catholicity.com/mccloskey/articles/state_of_the_church_2006.html”

They might not be followers of the Catholic Church. Read the whole paragraph. They may be box tickers like you were before you became illusioned.

“Meg, your company is less good then you think! Einstein was not a Christian and certainly not a Catholic.”

Comments such as “God does not throw dice with the universe” indicate that Einstein had some type of belief in God and public comments such as that indicate that he takes it seriously. This was the issue she was addressing. In any event if the population of believers is so low we should live in a wonderful society if your theories were correct.

”I preach tolerance, but I also preach intolerance of the intolerant,
as your religion has shown to be.”

Translation: You like to claim tolerance because it sounds good but even you can see how your comments about Christians prove otherwise so you want to make this excuse.

Contrary to your claim of Christian intolerance it has proved the opposite whereas secular and other intolerance of Christianity screams at the obvious conclusion that tolerance is difficult outside of the religion. I guess one of the fundamental principles of Christianity "Do unto others as you would that they did to you." goes a long way in this regard.

Yabby, read the text of Einstein’s comments…he argues there is a God…I agree.

Bin Laden encourages killing of innocents, more akin to your comments, not mine…

…he believes the end justifies his means too…

…the possibility of having less bonobos and chimps eaten in Africa justifies killing babies around the world through abortion…by your illogically ‘sustainable’ world order?

‘The minds of many Catholics can be evidenced by their deeds.’

You mean like St Vincent De Paul, Mother Teresa and the Sisters of Charity or Pope John Paul 11? Lots of 'evidence' there…

'Evidence' on good or bad deeds of most INDIVIDUAL Catholics doesn't exist, Yabby…unless you mean that held by St Peter at the Pearly gates…

You’re a long way short of knowing the minds of many others, Catholic or otherwise…

‘Yup I preach "choice", not religious tyranny’

You PREACH ‘choice’ Yabby, but demonstrate your own brand of tyranny, under the guise of ‘sustainability’…with a blighted bias on everything Catholic…no one’s forcing you to practice Catholicism BTW.

You insist that killing babies is necessary to prevent chimps being eaten…? Questionable logic aside, you certainly force your views on others…'tolerance' and ‘choice’? – non-existent apparently.

‘Farewell?’ Bosk you’re back…was that a ‘lie’ too?

Mine-‘don’t pose irrational scenarios and be insulted when they’re dismissed as such.’

Yours-‘Now to your contention that an analogical argument is illogical.’

Not the same ‘contention’, is it Bosk…more ‘lies’?

‘Bosk, you've abandoned all logic and reason with this post’ and quote above…

‘my SCENARIOS & NOT myself were being dismissed. Not exactly what she said before is it?’

You AND your scenarios…including ‘data’ are illogical and irrelevant to the topic for debate…I’m still waiting for the ‘9 month disease’ the son has and how you will ‘find’ another ‘blood donor’ when this one dies…she won’t last 9 months.

(tbc)

(Cont…)

Deliberate killing of a baby (abortion) versus…killing woman (fictitious, Frankenstein movie) - despite your protests, infant’s ‘condition’ is medically impossible as you’ve presented it…NO ANALOGICAL COMPARISONS of these babies or women. Hence my request for disclosure of ‘disease’ and other details…don’t bother, Bosk…you’ve already eliminated possibility of rational debate.

Hmmmm…quite obtuse, Bosk…? "…plenty of valid reasons given…”

You stated I’d given NO reasons, then contradicted yourself saying I HAD GIVEN REASONS…I’m stating your contradictions (proven) and that my reasons are valid, I wouldn’t present them if I considered them invalid…check quotation marks and your other inaccuracies in my posted quotes…300? No Bosk…wrong again.

My response was already WRITTEN when you posted yours…then posted later (with one additional sentence to you – using remaining words available), I responded to you WITH REASONS on April 4th…

…my further posts on 5th-7th-8th-9th-April continue comments to others also. I’m not confined to comment on your posts alone, Bosk…and thankfully my life holds more than awaiting your posts, or responding on your schedule…

Consider reading posts carefully…then ensure your facts are straight before placing both feet in up to your knees.

‘Meg argues that we must first know the name & nature of the disease the infant suffers before we can make a moral decision. Should that make any difference?’

No, Meg didn’t mention ‘a moral decision’, (another ‘lie’?)…it’s reasonable to ask for data if the probability of any such ‘disease’ is unlikely or medically impossible. IF you promote barbaric methods of abortion as ‘acceptable’ (for convenience, no less?) instead of pro-life alternatives available, it follows that I may not trust you to have explored all possibilities of ‘saving’ this infant (without killing others in the process).

…or your medical ‘diagnosis’ to begin with.

Don’t you think the woman is owed a second opinion, Bosk? Where’s all that ‘choice’ you talk about.

Again…

The onus is still on you to prove why you are 'more equal' than any others…and should have the right to kill.

Mjpb, your ‘translation’ of the ‘tolerance’ statement, sums up the situation very well…couldn’t put it any better…