Quote:
Originally Posted by earthlyfather
And your contention that the 53,000,000 was not factual? You didn't respond, so I'll help you out. It is a CDC statistic, included in a research paper by the Guttmacher Institute, which I understand is an extension of Planned Parenthood. The first sentence of your post that I originally responded too was about the 53m number being factual, so I addressed it first. Emotionally, you leapth to the defense of your right, rather then deal with your emotional and inaccurate characterization of that number being incorrect.
As to the definition, all I did was explain my grounding. I think without display of emotion, accusation,or condemnation. People explain things in conversations.
Anyway, it is not my definition. Arbitrary versus absolute is about context, which is why I bothered to explain the context. You are free to not agree with it, but it is the context from which I view the world. I'm delineating the difference between a Christian's belief in the absoluteness of God's word, versus man's choices, or exercise of his free will. Since you are sensitive about gender, understand I use the words, 'men and/or man's', as meaning the homosapien species, and thus inclusive women and men. You may not be a Christian, and therefore do not understand a Christian's understanding and belief in the absoluteness.
Nowhere have I, nor have I condemned your right to choose. Right to choose is too simplistic and self-centered to explain the loss of 50,000,000~ lives. Diseases don't have to take that many souls, before societies swing into action to combat the disease. Aids? The bird flu. Polio? The starvation and atrocities that have unfolded in Africa don't have to approach that level to garner the world's attention.
And we shouldn't be concerned about the loss of 50m~ lives?
The emotion and narrow focus of your defense competes with your contention of rationable and reasonable.
|
I did respond. You ignored it because it doesn't fit your agenda. Here it is again--lifetimes are not measured in lives not lived. Want it again? Lifetimes are not measured in lives not lived.
The reference to abortions was intended to get an emotional response. Not a rational response.
Critical thinking is about putting emotional responses aside, and responding rationally.
Coulter's commentaries aren't about provoking thoughtful responses, they are about provoking people emotionally.
You call yourself a critical thinker, however, all you've demonstrated in this thread is your susceptibility to reacting emotionally, not rationally.
You cannot win a debate by making up definitions to suit your argument. If you are going to use words, you must use them in the way they are generally accepted. Making up how you mean "arbitrary" is enlightening to us about your mindset, but the fact that you don't use the word in the established way doesn't further your argument.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
