h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

MG:

>>i mean, how do we check to see whether someone is alive? A: we check to see if they have a pulse(or if they are breathing, but they can be not breathing and still be alive, otherwise anyone holding there breath would be dead).<<

The typical life sign indicator that we can regularly check for is pulse. People can be alive with no pulse, though. I personally feel that if there are no brain waves (and hence, no brain activity) the entity is functionally dead.

>>but you can't kill something that isn't alive in the first place.<<

No, I suppose you can't. If you look at the scientific definition of life, you'll find it's rather demanding.

-jb

jbliqemp:

>>Undoubtedly, the child's diaphram moves before this. That isn't breathing, though.<<

What is your definition of breathing?

>>If you look at the scientific definition of life, you'll find it's rather demanding.<<

What is the scientific definition of life?

Breathing is rather simply the exchange of gasses between your body and the air around you. As a fetus does not have any air around it, it cannot possibly breathe. It takes its first breath of air after the doctor pulls it free and slaps it on the ass.

Colonel Sellers:

>>As a fetus does not have any air around it, it cannot possibly breathe.<<

So then, do you believe that a fish does not breathe? A fish does not have any air around it. I think it safe to say that it does breathe. My definition of breathe is to take in oxygen and give out carbon dioxide through natural processes. I think a more proper way to say this is: "Breathing is rather simply the exchange of gasses between your body and the environment around you." A fish does this. A fish breathes. An un-born baby does this. An un-born baby breathes. Under your definition of breathe, life cannot begin at the first breath because then no fish is alive and amphibians are only alive part of the time. I do realize that this does not erase such an argument for human life.

Forgive me Colonel Sellers. You asked those questions at a time when I was very busy. This is a reply to post 103

>> I don't believe any of that claptrap about anime or souls or life beginning when it looks human. In case you hadn't noticed, I certainly don't believe in a soul, so what shape it would take is completely irrelevant to me.<<

It really doesn't matter what you believeconcerning the existence of a soul in this case. I was making the argument that the pro-abortion idea of a feotus not being a human until it looks like a human is based on bad Aristotleian ideas. It is just bad science.


>>I noticed that you refused to answer question number 3 on abortion. I didn't ask what the law was, I asked what you would do. Can you force your mother to give birth to that child? Can you honestly love it as you would a sibling?<<

You caught me. I did indeed give a non-answer. I would try to persuade my mother to have the child. Naturally afteranyone is raped they would most likely need some sort of counseling. I would try to find her psychological help. I cannot force my mother to do anything. I would love the child as I love my brother.

>>Really, now, if you're going to continue to contradict yourself, this argument is going to deteriorate into nonsense.<<

I haven't contradicted myself.

Back to the current conversation. Nosretep you may have the floor.

>>"Breathing is rather simply the exchange of gasses between your body and the environment around you." <<

You're thinking of simple respiration. Fish don't breathe, they exchange gasses through their gills. People exposed to air breathe. Fetus's respirate. Just like your liver.

There, even says it in the dictionary. 'To inhale and exhale from the lungs.'

Respiration is one of the several functions that must occur to satisfy the scientific definition of life. Also, excretion, eating or absorbing food, and reproduction. That isn't all of them. But some.

-jb

jbliqemp:

>>You're thinking of simple respiration. Fish don't breathe, they exchange gasses through their gills. People exposed to air breathe. Fetus's respirate. Just like your liver.<<

The definition of breathe that I used was a broader one than what you are using. You are right that we should use a narrower definition for breathe. But for the context of this conversation, I agree that resperation should be considered instead of breathing (under your definition) as you said..

>>Also, excretion, eating or absorbing food, and reproduction. That isn't all of them. But some.<<

What is your definition of food? Is it simple nourishment? Reproduction is required for a species' life, not for the life of an individual of a species (otherwise all sterile people would be dead).

Actually, it's the generation of energy that is necessary for life. Animals, most single celled creatures, fungi, and some plants 'eat or absorb' food. Most plants make their own food, as well as some single celled creatures.

Reproduction, or at least the mechanism, is necessary for life. Admittedly not an individuals life.

Did you know that virus's aren't considered alive until they invade a host cell? Little tidbit.

-jb

nosretep, i'm going to attempt this one more time, then i may go join fragilis. as it has been a few days, please forgive if i bore anyone with excessive quoting.

>>? They [statistics quoted earlier] do not further your argument, and do not impact abortion rights, but they impact the legal status of abortion.<<

they did not impact the legal status of abortion. the legal status of abortion impacts them.

[>>the impact is a consequence that you fail to see<<](broelan)

>>I thought that we were talking about abortion rites, and you say here that there is no connection there.<<

that is not what i said. the connection that exists is just opposite of the one you are thinking.

[>>there is NOT a definite right and wrong.<<](broelan)

>>That was under the assumption that EITHER the child is a human or you can't take away a woman's choice.<<

it is not an either/or situation. the child IS a human at some debatable point.(i do not say debatable because i do not believe this, i say debatable because it is an issue of debate in this very thread). so, the child IS human, and you should not take away a woman's choice. not either/or, *and*.

>>I believe that the arguments are to disagreements as to the standards for right and wrong.<<

what????

>>They are not bad people. I hope that I have never said this. I do not hate anyone who has had an abortion. I would not be a christian if I did. Instead I would deserve anything that bad that you can say to me and more. I do not want to punish anyone. I believe that the child is alive, and I want them to repect the life of the child. I am sorry if you hate me because of this.<<

i do not *hate* you. i hate no one. hate is ugly and wrong. i do, however, feel that your motives in this debate are idealistically wrong. not everyone can live up to your standards. even the ones that would like to do not always have the means to do so. sins are forgiven, but they are to be judged and forgiven by a higher power than yourself.

i read through this thread often, even when i do not have the time to post. it seems here lately i've noticed two things:

1-we are starting to dredge up old arguments and introduce them with new spins for them to be seen as new arguments.

2-and, please don't take offense at this, it seems that having gotten into such an in depth discussion with so many people that hold different views from yours, you are getting a larger view of the issue. it is no longer cut and dried, something to be instantly despised on the surface with no knowledge of "the real world" of abortion. i think (please forgive my assumptions, here, i'm telling it like i see it) that you are realizing that some of us have very valid arguments against the beliefs that you have blindly held fast to, and now you are attempting to contort the issue back into something that is easier to despise.

was it you that said to someone that you felt that person didn't want to see this issue resloved? i rather feel that none of us really want this issue resolved. so long as it is an open issue there's always the chance that "the good side" (whichever side one is on) will prevail over "the bad side" (the other side that wants to stop you from doing what you feel is right). it the debate were ever to be completely resolved, tensions and emotions surrounding it would become even higher. besides, what would we talk about then?

broelan:

>>that is not what i said. the connection that exists is just opposite of the one you are thinking.<<

I understand that the legal status of abortion will affect statistics. But, the statistics were used to make it legal in the first place. You have therefore shown that the connection goes both ways. The two (statistics and legal status) are interrelated. My question is, if it is an individual's decision, why do nation-wide statistics apply?

>>it is not an either/or situation. the child IS a human at some debatable point.(i do not say debatable because i do not believe
this, i say debatable because it is an issue of debate in this very thread). so, the child IS human, and you should not take
away a woman's choice. not either/or, *and*.<<

The either/or was expressing the anti-abortion/pro abortion rights positions. From an anti-abortion perspective, if the child is human then it should have the right to life just like the mother. From an anti-abortion perspective, you cannot take away a woman's choice because that choice is more important than a potential life (or real life if you believe the fetus is a human).

>>i do not *hate* you. i hate no one. hate is ugly and wrong. i do, however, feel that your motives in this debate are
idealistically wrong. not everyone can live up to your standards. even the ones that would like to do not always have the
means to do so. sins are forgiven, but they are to be judged and forgiven by a higher power than yourself.<<

Indeed some of the most outspoken anti-abortion activists end up in a situation that leads them to an abortion. They think that they can take away the choice of others and then take the choice themselves. They cannot live up to their own standards, much less anyone else's. I understand that people will disagree with me. My motives are to protect the lives of the un-born and to care for woman that I know and even those that I don't know who are in troubled pregnancies. Their actions will be judged and forgiven. I cannot do either. I am not in a position to judge, and I am not in a position to forgive. I am in a position to help.

>>2-and, please don't take offense at this, it seems that having gotten into such an in depth discussion with so many people that
hold different views from yours, you are getting a larger view of the issue. it is no longer cut and dried, something to be
instantly despised on the surface with no knowledge of "the real world" of abortion. i think (please forgive my assumptions,
here, i'm telling it like i see it) that you are realizing that some of us have very valid arguments against the beliefs that you
have blindly held fast to, and now you are attempting to contort the issue back into something that is easier to despise.<<

Basically you are telling me that I am trying to dehumanize the issue by ignoring the points brought before me. Often I see women dehumanize the issue by lofting choice and not seeing the the person that choice impacts. I see the difficulties in this world. I would be blind to miss them, and you all have helped to remove the cloud from infront of my eyes. I do thank you for that. You have helped me to see this from a more human perspective. I hope that I have done the same.

>>was it you that said to someone that you felt that person didn't want to see this issue resloved?<<

I don't remember, but I will say that to do so will put me in the losers chair, but I will not be the one who loses the most.

"I don't remember, but I will say that to do so will put me in the losers chair" - I would hate to think that this argument is simply about two positions, and a winner and a loser. This is a real issue here, with real people involved, that transcends us and our silly little argument.

"Indeed some of the most outspoken anti-abortion activists end up in a situation that leads them to an abortion." - This only proves the validity of the pro-choice argument. It's easy to moralize about the right to life, until you experience one of those situations yourself. That's why males comprise the most numerous and vociferous elements of the pro-choice segment... there is no chance that they'll ever be in that situation, so they can't identify. I chalk up my pro-choice stance to an above-average ability to empathise with people who are wildly different from myself.

>>I understand that the legal status of abortion will affect statistics. But, the statistics were used to make it legal in the first place. You have therefore shown that the connection goes both ways. The two (statistics and legal status) are interrelated. My question is, if it is an individual's decision, why do nation-wide statistics apply?<<

the legal status of abortion was not decided upon *those* statistics. different ones, i'm sure, but not statistics for child neglect and abuse, or foster or adoptive children from 1997. you have shown that statistics affect both sides of the debate, not i, and they are, indeed, different statistics. it *is* an individual decision, but national statistics apply because the pro-life movement seeks to change national law, therefore effectively eliminating the choice for each individual.

>>From an anti-abortion perspective, if the child is human then it should have the right to life just like the mother. From an anti-abortion perspective, you cannot take away a woman's choice because that choice is more important than a potential life (or real life if you believe the fetus is a human).<<

i'm assuming the second 'anti-abortion' is supposed to be pro-choice. it is not that the choice is more important than the life of a potential life (i'm just waiting for you to disect that and use it for your own purposes). it is partially that this nation was founded upon freedom of choice. just the same as it was founded upon freedom of speech. it is also that many people feel that the woman's life is more important than that of the potential life. i'm not just talking about possibility of losing the woman's life, i'm talking about the fact that it will be irrevocably changed. and the fetus may be correctly referred to as a potential life, because even after conception, the first thing an obstetrician will tell you is that there is never a guarantee that a fetus will go to term.

now, according to your argument, i'm a little confused about my own stance. if i became pregnant tonight, i would never consider having an abortion. i want a child. i don't believe i could possibly abort, even if the child were to be disabled. but i feel that that is my choice, and it is up to the next woman to make that choice for herself. so i am pro-life for myself, but pro-choice for every one else. by your definition of the positions, what does that make me?


>>I am in a position to help.<<

you are in a position to forgive. but you are only in a position to help those who wish to receive your help. you are only hindering and violating the rights of the rest.

>>Basically you are telling me that I am trying to dehumanize the issue by ignoring the points brought before me.<<

that is not what i meant. i meant to convey that you are picking our arguments for the bits and pieces that you can simplify and use to defend your own position. in absence of the bits and pieces that will work, you are reverting to arguments that have already been had and simplifying them for the same purposes.

>>Often I see women dehumanize the issue by lofting choice and not seeing the the person that choice impacts.<<

those women ARE the people those choices impact. it is not dehumanizing. it's called self-preservation.

>>it is not that the choice is more important than the life of a potential life.<<

that is meant to say "it is not that the choice is more important than a potential life."

apologies

Colonel Sellers:

>>I would hate to think that this argument is simply about two positions, and a winner and a loser. This is a real issue here, with real people involved, that transcends us and our silly little argument.<<

You are right, my apologies.

>>This only proves the validity of the pro-choice argument. It's easy to moralize about the right to life, until you experience one of those
situations yourself.<<

It is easy to tell others what to do, it is easy to be a hypocrite.

>>That's why males comprise the most numerous and vociferous elements of the pro-choice segment... there is no chance that they'll ever be in that situation, so they can't identify. I chalk up my pro-choice stance to an above-average ability to empathise with people who are wildly different from myself.<<

It is easier to just let others do what they want. But, I consider abortion an injustice. I will fight that injustice. I realize that this is a much harder position to maintain.

broelan:

>>you have shown that statistics affect both sides of the debate, not i<<

What I meant is that I showed that it went one way, you showed that it went the other. Therefore you showed me that it went both ways.

>>i'm assuming the second 'anti-abortion' is supposed to be pro-choice.<<

Sorry about that. I am not catching my mistakes.

>>it is partially that this nation was founded upon freedom of choice. just the same as it was founded upon freedom of speech. it is also that many people feel that the woman's life is more important than that of the potential life. i'm not just talking about possibility of losing the woman's life, i'm talking about the fact that it will be irrevocably changed. and the fetus may be correctly referred to as a
potential life, because even after conception, the first thing an obstetrician will tell you is that there is never a guarantee that
a fetus will go to term.<<

This nation was founded on many things. Equality was not one of them. Women were not allowed the same freedom as men. Blacks were not allowed the same freedom as whites, and the white master could often kill his slave with no retribution. Un-born, un-wanted children today are not allowed the same freedom as born children. If a drunk driver in the US hits a pregnant woman and kills her and the fetus, the driver can be charged with double manslaughter (actually the penalty is higher today for drunk driving). It was the decision to have sex (by both parties or only one) that irrevocably changed the woman's life. It was not the child. There is never a guarantee that you will live another year. Does that mean that you are a potential life?

>>so i am pro-life for myself, but pro-choice for every one else. by your definition of the positions, what does that make me?<<

That makes you pro abortion rights because you do not want to take the choice of abortion away from others, and you are here defending other people's choice for an abortion.

>>you are in a position to forgive. but you are only in a position to help those who wish to receive your help. you are only hindering and violating the rights of the rest.<<

It is not my place to forgive. A person who has abortion has done me no wrong. The one whom they have wronged also is not in a position to forgive. Therefore I feel that it my duty to give voice to those people. From the context of that conversation I was referring to the creater who will judge.

>>that is not what i meant. i meant to convey that you are picking our arguments for the bits and pieces that you can simplify and use to defend your own position. in absence of the bits and pieces that will work, you are reverting to arguments that have already been had and simplifying them for the same purposes.<<

I did not intend to do that. It would not be possible to refer to every part of this issue in every argument. What bits and pieces do you mean?

>>those women ARE the people those choices impact. it is not dehumanizing. it's called self-preservation.<<

The choice also impacts the child. The choice is held above that life. The child is alive. I do not believe that anyone here would disagree. The debate becomes when is the child a human. It is dehumanizing to loft choice above a human.

nosretep -

>>It was the decision to have sex (by both parties or only one) that irrevocably changed the woman's life. It was not the child. There is never a guarantee that you will live another year. Does that mean that you are a potential life?<<

the decision to have sex does irrevocably change life; you can never regain your virginity. it is a physical change, it does not have an insurmountable impact on the rest of your life. in the real world people have sex. it is a fact of life. in contrast, having a child irrevocably changes every aspect of life. physically, emotionally, socially, financially, fundamentally. some people are perfectly well aware of their own limitations and choose never to have children. some other people should not be allowed to have children, no matter how bad they want them. this doesn't mean they should be expected to permanently abstain. sex drive is also a fact of life.

i may not live another year. i am a life, my future is potential. unfortunately for your argument, the turning point is birth. in any chain of events, there is always a point of no return. i'm not saying that abortion should necessarily be a choice up until that point, i personally feel that late-term abortions should only be performed in the most desperate of cases, and even then at the choice of the mother (if a mother chooses to lay down her life for the sake of an unborn child, are you going to fight for the mother's life? that too is her choice.) legally the point of no return should be sometime *reasonably* between conception and birth. personally i favor a 12 to 14 week limit.

>>That makes you pro abortion rights because you do not want to take the choice of abortion away from others, and you are here defending other people's choice for an abortion.<<

i defend MY right to choice. have you read this thread in it's entirety, from post 1? do not presume to know my motives.

>>What bits and pieces do you mean?<<

these:

>>The choice also impacts the child. The choice is held above that life. The child is alive. I do not believe that anyone here would disagree. The debate becomes when is the child a human. It is dehumanizing to loft choice above a human.<<

I guess I'm back, momentarily at least.

You're right, norestep, that this country was not founded to create freedom and justice in the broadest sense. The US Constitution implies a right to own slaves, but does not include a universal right to privacy, to basic education, or to vote. And you are also right to point out that Western society increasingly embraces basic human rights for people who did not have them before. We agree that overall, the extension of human rights is a good thing. It's progress.

However, you fail to recognize the reasons for the changes. The farming economy of the US once relied upon slaves and child labor, without which the growing population would have starved. Why do you think it was so important for school to let out during the harvest season? But you can thank technology improvements like more efficient farming methods, the cotton gin, and the assembly line (rather than the Civil War) for relieving the practical imperative for slaves and child labor.

At the time of the Constitution's writing, there were no appliances to aid in housework. Somebody had to clean up each home, and it was a full-time job. The obvious choice for this burden was women, since they were already forced to remain home to give birth (a risky propisition back then). Modern inventions from dish washers to ready-made clothes to the birth control pill have finally freed up women to participate equally in society. But it wasn't always so. And it wasn't good will that made women mens' equals.

In every case I can think of, human rights have been extended because the practical reasons for limiting those rights were alleviated by technological improvements. So here's my theory. We all *want* to treat each other as human beings all the time, but the sad fact of the matter is that, historically speaking, it hasn't always been possible to do so.

I would argue that abortion is a similar predicament. In an ideal society, birth control would be so universally available and so perfectly effective that unwanted pregnancies would be extremely rare. If there were very few unwanted pregnancies, society could safely absorb them through adoptions -- and the children could be assured of good homes to live in. Women would be more comfortable with adoption if they really believed their child would fare well with it.

In an ideal society, rapists and child molesters could receive effective psychiatric treatment rather than being released from jail and ignored until they managed to impregnate somebody. In an ideal world, there would never be a medical situation which called for a doctor to choose between a mother and her unborn child. It would always be possible to save both. And in an ideal world, genetic defects found in unborn babies could be cured through gene therapy or other medical procedures. There are so many ways our world isn't ideal, but could be improved through technology.

As it is now, there are hard choices to be made. Can our society really absorb at least one additional unwanted child for every four women? Can the world also aborb the unwanted children from other countries where birth control is less available, countries like India where the rate of unwanted pregnancy is much higher than our own?

I don't think it's practical to assume we could. I think it would be societal suicide to try such an experiment. There would be untold suffering -- not just by the unwanted children among us, or by the families burdened with them, but by every citizen who must interact daily with their understandable anger and frustration.

Someday, perhaps, unborn children will have "rights" as you speak of. If they ever do, I sincerely hope this is because society has changed sufficiently to support such a change. I do hope it isn't because a bunch of rich moralists can't understand why millions of unwanted kids might be a disproportionate burden on the poorest segments of society.

In any case, my prediction is that homosexual and bisexual people will be the next class to gain broad human rights they didn't have. Perhaps even the polygamous among us will be treated as equals someday. After that, I expect we will extend additional rights to children -- like the ability to own property rather than *be* property.

But unborn children? I dunno. I don't think we're anywhere near ready for that. I think we have a long way to go.

But that's just my humble opinion, as always.

broelan:

>>it does not have an insurmountable impact on the rest of your life.<<

I don't like this argument. Sex does have an insurmountable impact on the rest of your life without birth control and abortion. Carrying a child to term does not have an insurmountable impact on the rest of your life with infanticide. This is the direction that I see your logic leading. I hope that I am wrong.

>>i may not live another year. i am a life, my future is potential. unfortunately for your argument, the turning point is birth. in any chain of events, there is always a point of no return.<<

And how do we determine that point of no return? Under your reasoning it is birth. Under mine it is conception. Under someone else's it may be when the child can survive on it's own. I am sure that we both agree that the latter is wrong. All birth does is get the child out of the mother. Conception is a definate biological/chemical point that defines in large part the child's future.

>>(if a mother chooses to lay down her life for the sake of an unborn child, are you going to fight for
the mother's life? that too is her choice.)<<

I met a woman recently who said that she would give up her life for her child. There is nothing more noble than someone willing to die for someone else. I will support her choice. I will fight for life.

>>i defend MY right to choice. have you read this thread in it's entirety, from post 1? do not presume to know my motives.<<

So why then do you use examples of other people to try to keep abortion legal? It seems clear to me that you will not take away someone else's choice, and you think it wrong to do so (as I would to you if I denied you that choice - assuming I had the power to do so).

I assume that the end of your post was cut off.

Fragilis the Melodical:

So do you think that the people who pressed for women's rights and slaves' rights before it was practical were a bunch of rich moralists who couldn't understand why millions of blacks or women might not be able to fend for themselves? That was the common argument for slavery. You were doing a black a great favor by enslaving him/her. You made yourself the "do-gooder." Today an argument for abortion is that you are doing un-born un-wanted children a favor by killing them.

I think those who pressed for slaves' rights and women's rights long before it was feasible were idealists unable to back up their activist opinions with practical solutions to the problems facing their society if their goals were realized. Hey, idealism has its place. If society can pinpoint possible improvements in human rights, it can act faster when solid opportunities occur. But the wide-eyed idealists shouldn't pass laws without considering consequences, in my opinion.

For instance, there was indeed a point in time when many slaves were technically freed, but society was not ready for the change yet. The ones who suffered most *were* the former slaves. They remained uneducated, and so were unable to find regular jobs. And the prejudice by those who feared slaves' independence grew in response to the perceived threat, resulting in higher levels of murder and other violent crimes against blacks, who really were easy victims. And where owners protected slaves from outside crime to some extent before, former slaves could not yet turn to the law.

Most of the former slaves either ended up "employed" at the same plantations they came from, or they paid outrageous "rents" to farm a plot of land they could not afford on their own. Either way, the white men who held them in thrall no longer felt an obligation to keep them fed and clothed. It was considered an embarrassment to pay a black family any money at all. So many underpaid former slaves starved or froze to death while trying to gain true independence.

So what helped? Useful advances like public libraries, which helped former slaves educate themselves. New farming techniques that allowed them to produce enough food to pay their "rents" and still feed themselves. And so on. These are the things that truly improved life for black people. And they would have done so with or without the heartfelt fervor of the early slave abolitionists. By the time America was really ready to free the slaves, the idealists had been joined by the realists who were able to put forward some concrete solutions to the problems faced by freed slaves.

Are we doing a favor to these unborn children by killing them? It's hard to say. But can you offer a better solution? Can you tell me where to place all these unwanted children in good homes? How to control the psychological problems they tend to have? The crime they tend to create? Three generations from now, do you know how to control the population problems in this country caused by several generations of unwanted children begetting unwanted children?

It seems to me that you, norestep, are the one trying to paint yourself as the "do-gooder." You're adamant about the rights of the unborn, but you're no more able to solve the problems of unwanted children than the early slave abolitionists were able to solve the problems of freed slaves. In my mind, I'm just trying to be a realist.

Fragilis the Melodical:

You have really put this into a new perspective for me. So, from your realistic viewpoint, abortion is a means of population control and not about women's reproductive rights? There are many people here that should be shocked by what you said. Several have said that abortion should not be used as population control. If that is its true purpose, a lot of people have been fooled by this pro abortion rights movement. Perhaps my earlier term "pro-abortion" is more applicable than I thought.

Well, norestep, I tried to converse with you as an equal. I did my darndest to give you the benefit of the doubt, assuming you would listen to me with an open mind and give your opinions with tact and decency.

You don't seem able to understand my points at all. You merely jump to whatever conclusions suit your pre-chosen assumptions best. In the end, you imagine wild conspiracies. And by associating me with them, you insult me.

I do not think of abortion as "population control." Nor do I condone slavery *at all*. And I certainly don't think women should remain in the household at all times. Can't you see the connections here? I am not a bogeyman with suspicious "pro-abortion" motivations. You seem to have invented this rationale for me from whole cloth.

I do recognize overpopulation as one of many social problems associated with giving birth in the case of every unwanted pregnancy. I asked you for possible solutions to this problem -- and instead of offering any, you attributed evil motivations to my conversation with you. This tells me where you stand on the issue pretty succinctly.

It is clear to me that we will not be reaching any common understanding. I am discontinuing my part in this conversation. Fare well in your crusade, norestep. I hope you receive better treatment from others than you give.