Abortion is... by dreamtrove

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

THANK YOU for your thoughtful reply.

I'll close out for now as I have a lot to do. I hope we can discuss some other topic as well at some future time.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 30, 2011 4:34 PM

happy, you are right that I am threatened by your beliefs, and the beliefs of those who wish to use legislation to implement control over others based on their religious faith and where there is NO evidence.

I would have no issue with your beliefs if you said
'well, I would never have an abortion because to me, the embryo contains a soul', which you will never probably say because you are a man (I think). But what you say 'no girlfriend of mine will ever have an abortion' or similar....well, great because you don't have to carry the baby, but that is another issue, you want it illegal for everyone, even those of us who do not share your beliefs, even when you yourself have expressed a deal of uncertainly about when a soul would enter and leave a foetus.

You haven't actually addressed any issue in any comprehensible way, other than to state you don't like it. And that isn't enough to argue to have it banned.

Your call for a blanket ban on all terminations would also bring about the end of most artificial reproductive assisance, as in IVF procedures several day old embryos are routinely destroyed. I haven't heard of the anti abortion crowd picketing many of those type of clinics - probably because they often choose to use them when baby making doesn't turn out to be as delicously natural and thrilling as they first envisaged.

The more I learn about reproduction, the more I learn how tenuous the embryos hold on existence is. a woman's body is just this fleshy factory which is trying to create babies whenever the conditions are right. There are an awful lot of duds that get discarded, probably most within days of conception and without notice. Nobody is sadder, nobody is concerned about souls of these bunches of cells, but somehow when there is choice involved it is murder? There is a lot that doesn't make sense to me about these arguments and I am highly suspicuous of the motives of the anti abortion lobbyists, who generally come from conservative religious backgrounds, who have traditionally kept a tight hold over women's reproduction.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 30, 2011 4:49 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Hi MagonsD

Well I did come back b/c what I'm doing now is tedious and frustrating and ... HappyT has a primarily emotional response. It isn't necessarily about formal beliefs, facts or ideas. I don't think you will be able to discuss this topic rationally and be able to get a change of heart.

Looking at what people discuss here, I've come to the conclusion that people are primarily driven by emotion, and the more deeply held an emotion is, the less likely they are to be objective about it - ever. Not to say some don't have larger areas of objectivity, or don't obtain insight. But it's a long education process.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 30, 2011 7:05 PM

Quote:
happy, you are right that I am threatened by your beliefs, and the beliefs of those who wish to use legislation to implement control over others based on their religious faith and where there is NO evidence.

I'm sorry to hear that, but I'm going to optimistically assume you are threatened by "the beliefs of those who wish to use legislation to implement control over others based on their religious faith and where there is NO evidence" more than specifically mine. My religion may have a bit of influence on some things, such as my views on abortion, but I refuse to taint my religion with politics

Give God what's God's and Ceaser what is Ceaser's right? I am all for the separation of church and state and I believe Jesus was as well.

Quote:
I would have no issue with your beliefs if you said
'well, I would never have an abortion because to me, the embryo contains a soul', which you will never probably say because you are a man (I think). But what you say 'no girlfriend of mine will ever have an abortion' or similar....well, great because you don't have to carry the baby, but that is another issue, you want it illegal for everyone, even those of us who do not share your beliefs, even when you yourself have expressed a deal of uncertainly about when a soul would enter and leave a foetus.

You haven't actually addressed any issue in any comprehensible way, other than to state you don't like it. And that isn't enough to argue to have it banned.

That's why my position is not "abortion should be illegal because my pastor/priest/Jesus told me so, it's "The fetus will be a living breathing self aware human being at some point, and because we don't know when that starts, it is best to assume that is always the case to avoid murdering something." I'm very open and honest about my my emotional and religious reasons (and yall did ask 'em) but those shouldn't carry any weight politically.

Quote:
Your call for a blanket ban on all terminations would also bring about the end of most artificial reproductive assisance, as in IVF procedures several day old embryos are routinely destroyed.

Come again? That seems like a hell of a leap, but I do not know much about artificial reproductive assistance.

Quote:
The more I learn about reproduction, the more I learn how tenuous the embryos hold on existence is. a woman's body is just this fleshy factory which is trying to create babies whenever the conditions are right. There are an awful lot of duds that get discarded, probably most within days of conception and without notice. Nobody is sadder, nobody is concerned about souls of these bunches of cells, but somehow when there is choice involved it is murder?

Well, ya. If you chose to kill something and it died as a result of your actions, then yes, you are responsible for killing it. "It might have died anyway" is no excuse and let's be honest, most abortions aren't going to be done cause "they might die anyway."

Quote:
I am highly suspicuous of the motives of the anti abortion lobbyists, who generally come from conservative religious backgrounds, who have traditionally kept a tight hold over women's reproduction.

I'd be suspicious just because they are lobbyists, but the rest of that ain't exactly helping their case.

I know I'm not the greatest debater in the world. I'm too honest, I'll admit when I'm wrong, what I'm not particularly informed about, what emotional and religious aspects have effects on how I view things. I really am setting my self up for failure... Also I shouldn't ignore my spidey sense, I know saying abortions should (mostly) be illegal could lead to misunderstanding or confusion of my position.

From what I understand, your position is bad things happen, people die all the time, baby's aren't smarter than dogs and embryo's die naturally all the time, so why should it matter if we kill one when the mother wishes it?

Please understand that my position is not "abortion should be illegal because religious people said so and a woman can't be trusted to make those decisions." My position is closer to "without our intervention, an embryo could eventually grow into a full fledged human adult and if we abort it we are ending that life." I don't understand how that is confusing or illogical.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 30, 2011 7:38 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Don't know what MD would say but your tepid concern for adults being killed is inconsistent with a general regard for the sacredness of human life.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 30, 2011 7:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Hi MagonsD

Well I did come back b/c what I'm doing now is tedious and frustrating and ... HappyT has a primarily emotional response. It isn't necessarily about formal beliefs, facts or ideas. I don't think you will be able to discuss this topic rationally and be able to get a change of heart.

Looking at what people discuss here, I've come to the conclusion that people are primarily driven by emotion, and the more deeply held an emotion is, the less likely they are to be objective about it - ever. Not to say some don't have larger areas of objectivity, or don't obtain insight. But it's a long education process.

Aww come on now, I thought we were doing better than that? I resent the acusation that one cannot have emotions and still discuss things logically. If you would like to change my mind you will have better luck showing me how you are right rather than telling me I am wrong because of a religion and experiences I freely admit to, but am not controlled by.

Yall say bad things happen, I agree and this is one of them. Y'all say what if the mother's life is in danger and I say that is an excellent point, she should have every treatment option available to her. I'm trying my best to answer every one of your questions both from a logical standpoint we can all see and relate to and the emotional or religious reasons I have for feeling this ways. I suppose it was my fault for mentioning that at all, but I know if someone asked me about that and I tried to hide it you'd all pounce on me and call me sexist or bigot or something. I'm sure someone would make up hidden motivations for me if I did not freely supply them. Or am I being pessimistic?

EDIT:

Quote:
Don't know what MD would say but your tepid concern for adults being killed is inconsistent with a general regard for the sacredness of human life.

Or perhaps it is evidence of my ability to discuss the abortion topic in detail without wasting time on descriptions of a separate topic I'd be happy to discuss in another thread.

'Tepid' concern... really? Shall I extend this thread by several screen lengths just to prove to you I value every human life? This is ridiculous.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 30, 2011 8:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
'Tepid' concern... really? Shall I extend this thread by several screen lengths just to prove to you I value every human life? This is ridiculous.

You don't sound tepid to me.

I think you made it very clear that you're more motivated to protect vulnerable lives than lives which have a chance to fend for themselves. It doesn't mean you VALUE adult lives less.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 30, 2011 8:03 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Lack of consistency between the value you place on one merely potential human life and another older actual life is the biggest indicator to me that you are reacting to a specific emotion - protectiveness - and not to some deeply held general ethic or moral. I think there is a lot of stuff intertwined - how you view your childhood, your role in the world, what you think the world is supposed to be like, what is important to you - and it all comes out as 'save the fetus!' but everyone else is at the mercy of society, because, well, whatcha' gonna do?

I read something once that summarized it for me: life is sacred, until it's born.

I have no general issue with the feeling that we need to care for and protect our fellow humans - treating people as commodities and creating a work or die society is one of the biggest criticisms I have of capitalism. And I think there may even be a biological basis to feel protective toward the small (but not so strong that it can't be overcome as for example with the Spartans), but not so much toward adults.

I would hope that you would gain a little perspective and realize that those feelings come from specific ideas (aww, that embryo looks just like a little baby ...), from specific social expectations (it's not OK to torment small helpless things, be nice), from personal history .. and that they don' necessarily reflect objective universal truths.

Just as an example about lack of consistency - you do not see the analogy between paying taxes so a woman can have an abortion and paying taxes to wage war and kill people. One you would object to, the other is just a big pile of suck to complain about. So no, you don't view all killing as equally abhorrent.

"I'm not sure when the soul enters a body and becomes truly 'alive' or 'conscious,' but I'd hate to risk killing a 'living' growing human out of convenience or carelessness. Of course I disapprove of abortions and I especially disapprove of the idea of our tax money funding it, but one of those possibilities directly affects me and one of those does not.

Now you can deflect and dismiss this, saying "what about war?" and listing all the other despicable things they accomplish with our money. That's all true and unfortunate, but it doesn't change anything, that's just another great big human engineered pile of suck to complain about."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 30, 2011 8:05 PM

Happy, I think you continually misunderstand my meaning. I'm not saying 'bad things happen, people die all the time, baby's aren't smarter than dogs and embryo's die naturally all the time, so why should it matter if we kill one when the mother wishes it? ' at all.

I'll try and clarify for you. You say 'an embryo is sacred because it has the capacity to grow into a human being', which is kind of different to saying 'it has a soul' I might add, which is where you originally started off. I guess you are right in that an embryo has the capacity to grow into a human, but then both sperm and eggs have that capacity as well, it's just that they haven't wiggled together yet. For right to lifers, there is something special about when they wiggle together, often its because they believe that is when the soul enters. Okay, so I don't believe in souls, not in that way anyway. I see that the only difference between that embryo and the separate components is that they have joined together. Now they may go onto to grow into a human, but as I said earlier an awful lot don't. and when they don't (in early pregnancy) we don't have funerals for them, we don't have graves. They're flsuhed down the tiolet or destroyed in hospital furnaces. Now I want you to understand that I am not saying 'bad shit happens, so who cares'. I'm trying to demonstrate the difference between an embryo and a human, and we how we treat them and feel about them.

People with religious beliefs are so stuck on this idea of sacredness of a set of human cells that they lobby governments hard to prevent the issuing of the morning after pill - you know just in case something sacred happens in the 48 hours after sex, or the abortion pill which could be used in very early pregnancy, even though its a low risk, non interventionist way of ending a pregnancy. The reason they do that is because they believe in souls, and they are very, very successful lobbyists.

Most people who are not religious would have few issues with either the morning after pill, the abortion pill or early term abortions - that is my experience anyway. But most people would regard killing a 7 or 8 month foetus as abhorrent. It's religious people who drive the blanket ban on pregnancy termination.

I never said an embryo is as smart as a dog, so who cares if we value one over the other. I was trying to argue that we don't treat 'all life as sacred' because we kill all the time. We also don't treat 'all human life as sacred' because we kill humans (legally) all the time too. Soldiers kill other people, other soldiers, civilan men, women, children, old people.... They return and they are treated as heroes. Doctors who perfom abortions are living in fear of their lives. That doesn't make sense.

Now if governments outlawed all war, all executions of criminals and then wanted to outlaw abortion, I'd probably have more time for the argument. But as it is, the US is constantly involved in 'conflict' as it is euphemistically known. How many people, born people have died as a result of that conflict?????

Even if all war was banned, you are right, maybe sometime you'd have to kill to defend yourself, right? Sometimes bad stuff does happen and you ahve to do difficult things and make tough decisions. I guess I see abortion like that.

Re IVF - women are given drugs to grow more eggs in a cycle, which are then harvested and implanted with sperm. Sometimes they can have a dozen or so embryos per cycle, if they are lucky. Embryos are implanted after a few days. The reason they harvest so many is that so few survive or are viable, or will 'take' in a cycle. Sometimes women are left with spare embryos, which are usually destroyed. I've known plenty of Christians who'd blanche at the idea of abortion, willingly and happily go through this procedure. But then most people are able to twist their beliefs to suit their circumstances in my view.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 30, 2011 8:17 PM

Quote:
Lack of consistency between the value you place on one merely potential human life and another older actual life is the biggest indicator to me that you are reacting to a specific emotion - protectiveness - and not to some deeply held general ethic or moral.

That's assuming you have a frackin' clue the value I place on any life. I can assure you without absolute certainty that I am the authority on all things concerning myself, particular when it comes to how I value things

I'm fairly 'protective,' I'll freely admit, but what if that protectiveness and all the emotion attached to it were inspired by a deeply heal moral or ethic?

Quote:
it all comes out as 'save the fetus!' but everyone else is at the mercy of society, because, well, whatcha' gonna do?

cha' gonna do what we can where we can. There's no reason why we can't eliminate abortion (methods of which should be focused on eliminating the need for abortions rather than just making it a punishable offense) and still work to end wars, eliminate poverty, feed the hungry, etc...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 30, 2011 8:26 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

That's true - but you clearly didn't see the connection between paying taxes to wage war and paying taxes so women could have abortions if they couldn't afford them, BOTH of which very obviously end in death. Which is why I asked you what your stand was on the Iraq war, the death penalty and gun control. In fact there are many, many circumstances where we spend resources to kill people. So I'm curious - Iraq War - for or against? Death penalty - for or against? Gun control - for or against?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 30, 2011 8:33 PM

I appreciate the clarification and I'll add one of my own.

I disagree with all intentional deaths equally. Abortions, wars, executions legal and otherwise. If don't care that someone or others that you know are inconsistent in how they treat or describe human life. And only in very rare circumstances should you ever have to kill your fetus to defend yourself.

We don't always have the luxury of getting things accomplished in the order in which we prefer. If 10,000's of children were starving in one location, 100,000 dieing of disease in another, and 100's being killed off by some extremist group somewhere else still, I would want to end them all, probably starting where we can provide the greatest relief with our current resources, but politics might not give us that options. Even though the starvation and disease is a bigger issue, we have enough political support or leverage to take out the extremists now so we take a crack at that first. From the political elite it may very well be gross maladjustment of priorities but for myself, it's pragmatism. I see many evils, one of which it looks like we could possibly end soonish.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 30, 2011 8:40 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Just wanted to point out you are against gun control not b/c you like guns but b/c you dislike anything that limits your freedom. So there is at least one thing you think is more sacred than life, and that is your freedom, which makes life only somewhat sacred.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 30, 2011 8:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
That's true - but you clearly didn't see the connection between paying taxes to wage war and paying taxes so women could have abortions if they couldn't afford them, BOTH of which very obviously end in death. Which is why I asked you what your stand was on the Iraq war, the death penalty and gun control. In fact there are many, many circumstances where we spend resources to kill people. So I'm curious - Iraq War - for or against? Death penalty - for or against? Gun control - for or against?

I'm not sure if I should answer these questions... but, the focus of this discussion is no longer abortion, so I'll bite. It is now about The Happy Trader and opinions on moral consistencies!

Iraq War: I wish we never went there, it ain't our job to police the world. We can't even police our cops!

Gun Control: Behind every murder is a person, whether they are pulling a trigger or stabbing somebody. I would be in favor of a mandatory gun safety class and license to purchase a firearm.

Death Penalty: Completely against, this is about as black/white as I can get and there is a lot of religious motivation behind it. If you kill a person they do not get a chance to learn from their ways and repent. As a more practical argument, it's just plain cheaper to keep them locked up alive. As a more idealistic but less religious reasoning, if an innocent man is found guilty he at least as a shot (though probably a very small one) of eventually being found innocent. This does them no good if they have already been executed.

EDIT: can't keep up with your post. I actually dislike guns, but don't delude myself into thinking guns are the cause of our problems, they are just a tool like any other. Freedom more sacred than life? Is there a particular reason on why you insist on these scales?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 30, 2011 9:12 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Oh, sorry. In my defence I do try to keep my posts short and to the point.

I was wondering where you draw your lines, and why. Example: gun control - roughly 30,000 are shot and die each year. One could make the argument that a certain portion of those were going to die anyway - ie the killer had enough intent that they would have gone out of their way to use a knife, club or some such. But guns are so easy, so risk-free for the shooter, so effective and so instantaneous. BOOM. Sight to thought to hand to death. So let's say as an estimate, 27,000 wouldn't have had the intent, the nerve or the strength to knife/ bludgeon/ suffocate/ strangle their victim at arms' length over the time it takes to get it done. That's a lot of lives saved by banning guns, and if saving life is THE primary goal then there is no reason to not ban guns. OTOH if there are reasons to NOT ban guns, then those reasons are more important than life.

I HOPE it was you who changed the title!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 30, 2011 10:05 PM

Yeah it was me and my sense of humor

Your argument is taking the importance of saving lives in general and comparing it to the right to arms and then relating it to the abortion issue I assume.

The problem with this is guns can be used for more than just murder. They can be used for target practice, sport, hunting, and in emergencies self defense. Abortions can only be used to deliberately kill a fetus.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 31, 2011 5:33 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

So you find the other reasons for having guns - which are weapons, not toys - be more important than preventing death, even preventing murder. That is the strength of your morals about life. You probably don't understand what you just posted, but that's OK.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 31, 2011 6:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
So you find the other reasons for having guns - which are weapons, not toys - be more important than preventing death, even preventing murder. That is the strength of your morals about life. You probably don't understand what you just posted, but that's OK.

Arrogant much? I guess if I don't really know what I'm posting I should just let you post for me. Obviously you understand better than I do.

Alright, let me put this in a way so simple even you should be able to understand it.

A gun is a thing. Murder is an action (an action already illegal I might add). Abortion is an action. A scalpel is a thing. Having a gun does not have to lead to murder. Having a scalpel does not have to lead to an abortion. Committing a murder does result in the death of a person. Having an abortion does result in the death of a fetus.

I am against both the actions of murder and abortion. I hold the human life in higher regard than the right to murder (which does not exist) and the right to abortion (which IMO shouldn't exist outside of medical emergencies where the mother could die.)

What's more important, the tools we use or the actions we take with them?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 31, 2011 8:47 AM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
People with religious beliefs are so stuck on this idea of sacredness of a set of human cells that they lobby governments hard to prevent the issuing of the morning after pill

From wikipedia on RU-486:

Quote:
Many pro-life groups in the US actively campaigned against the approval of mifepristone,[49][50][51] and continue to actively campaign for its withdrawal.[52] They cite either ethical issues with abortion or safety concerns regarding the drug and the adverse reactions associated with it, including death.[53]

The adverse reactions resulting in death are particularly exaggerated, though in the clinical studies there were cases of excessive uterine bleeding and RU-486 was issued with a black box warning about this. In some cases bleeding required an emergency blood transfusion. That makes me concerned not only for the welfare of the women taking the pill but also for the future viability of egg-uterine implanting.

But I wouldn't ban it either. Risk is part of choice. Another subject to cover in sex education.

DT tells me that non-fatal abortions would not be feasible, but provided the technology and system to accommodate the births and post-natal growth to term I still kinda like the idea. >_>

Quote:
A small but vocal group of female scientists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Institute on Women and Technology issued a report under the name of "Feminist International Network of Resistance to Reproductive and Genetic Engineering" in the early '90s to express their opposition to mifepristone, because "We felt what was being lost in the political debate was how the drug affects women. In contrast with the groups who are anti-feminist and anti-abortion, the Institute on Women and Technology advocates women's rights to abortion and self determination", said Dr. Janice Raymond of FINRRAGE. Additional feminist critics exist, such as Pauline Connor (LI.B.) of Feminists Against Eugenics in England who stated, "What has been presented as a simple, pill-popping exercise is, in fact, an intensely medicalized and painful procedure which can involve up to four clinic visits and last 12 days."

I don't know much about them, they could be crazy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 31, 2011 10:49 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Not arrogant, I just understand the logic behind your assumptions better than you do b/c you haven't thought about it much, they are still just assumptions.

You claim moral authority to ban abortions b/c you say that human life, or even the mere possibility of a human life, is your primary value. In fact, you seem to think it is THE most important value of all, and something you don't want your money being spent on to violate.

But then you kinda don't get that society spends your money to kill adult people in all sorts of ways (and war and the death penalty are only two), and that's maybe a pile of crap to complain about but certainly not one you would hope would become illegal in some perfect society, or one you would refuse to have your money spent on today.

You defended guns partly on the basis that they are fun, so fun is more important than preventing death. And now you are defending guns on the basis that people should have freedom, so apparently to you, freedom is more important than preventing death. And every time you choose something other than preventing intentional death you affirm that intentional death is not such a big deal to you.

So what I get is that there are MANY things more important to you than preventing intentional death including letting people have their freedom, even freedom to buy a weapon designed for nothing more than to kill people. And society spending your money on intentional death is not something you seriously object to.

But all of that desire for individual freedom, including the freedom to kill, and the freedom from paying for killing - stops at abortion. Because abortion in your mind is somehow a different kind of death.

So you are inconsistent in your valuation. But that inconsistency undercuts your claim to moral authority for your position. That's what I'm seeing.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 31, 2011 11:16 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Wow. STILL going on! Too much for me, but I caught one remark that, as usual Magons, speaks for me:

Quote:
an embryo has the capacity to grow into a human, but then both sperm and eggs have that capacity as well, it's just that they haven't wiggled together yet. For right to lifers, there is something special about when they wiggle together, often its because they believe that is when the soul enters. Okay, so I don't believe in souls, not in that way anyway. I see that the only difference between that embryo and the separate components is that they have joined together. Now they may go onto to grow into a human, but as I said earlier an awful lot don't. and when they don't (in early pregnancy) we don't have funerals for them, we don't have graves.

A zygote is not a "fetus", nor is it a human being in my opinion.

Other than that, I'll let you guys work it out. That's pretty much where I stand:

Nobody has the right to force a woman to carry a child to term. Late-term abortions are abhorrent, as by then I do believe a fetus is a "child", but pregnancy prevention and early abortion are the right of the woman involved, and nobody else's business.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 31, 2011 12:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Not arrogant, I just understand the logic behind your assumptions better than you do b/c you haven't thought about it much, they are still just assumptions.

You claim moral authority to ban abortions b/c you say that human life, or even the mere possibility of a human life, is your primary value. In fact, you seem to think it is THE most important value of all, and something you don't want your money being spent on to violate.

But then you kinda don't get that society spends your money to kill adult people in all sorts of ways (and war and the death penalty are only two), and that's maybe a pile of crap to complain about but certainly not one you would hope would become illegal in some perfect society, or one you would refuse to have your money spent on today.

You defended guns partly on the basis that they are fun, so fun is more important than preventing death. And now you are defending guns on the basis that people should have freedom, so apparently to you, freedom is more important than preventing death. And every time you choose something other than preventing intentional death you affirm that intentional death is not such a big deal to you.

So what I get is that there are MANY things more important to you than preventing intentional death including letting people have their freedom, even freedom to buy a weapon designed for nothing more than to kill people. And society spending your money on intentional death is not something you seriously object to.

But all of that desire for individual freedom, including the freedom to kill, and the freedom from paying for killing - stops at abortion. Because abortion in your mind is somehow a different kind of death.

So you are inconsistent in your valuation. But that inconsistency undercuts your claim to moral authority for your position. That's what I'm seeing.

Then you are blind.

I am not pro-war, pro-murder, pro-execution. You have taken it upon yourself to assume I find guns 'fun' which I find especially amusing considering I do not own a gun and feel uncomfortable around them. I've already said numerous times I dislike guns.

You've also taken it upon yourself to assume I'm claiming 'moral authority.' I'm only claim authority on my own thoughts, opinions, and motivations. Obviously you disagree with those, so something must be wrong with me? For the record, the one your likely ignoring, I would like that big pile of crap to complain about to be illegal too and if I had a say in the matter I would refuse that my money be spent to fund it. Here's a novel concept, we can discuss that in another thread, something about war even.

Why don't you go play Dr. Phil somewhere else. It's obvious you care more about inferring or imagining an individual's inconsistencies than taking the time to understand a position not your own.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 31, 2011 1:08 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

I assumed nothing, not even that you like guns. But you defend the right OTHER of people who DO like guns to have guns b/c they can be used for sport (ie fun), even though that is inconsistent with your professed valuation of human life. You argue that the right of people to have fun with guns is greater than the right of people to live free from gun deaths.

I may take the time to bring up your words to you, but perhaps you should review them yourself and see exactly how many ways and reasons you demonstrate that you don't care THAT much about SOME deaths, because, as you argue, other things are more valuable, or because those deaths simply don't count very much on their own standing.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 31, 2011 4:19 PM

This is my last response in this exercise in futility. I have defended the rights of gun owners (in other threads) to responsibly keep and use their weapons. Emphasis responsibly. Their use guns does not result in death, barring of the unfortunate scenario of self defense. I hate guns, they make me uncomfortable, but even I realize that guns not gonna hope up and shoot someone all on their own.

I've already said I am against killing of any kind, including wars, murders, executions and abortions. I'm also against folks acting like douches, but I'm don't believe in taking away your free speech. I would love to see an end to all wars and violence, I would also love to see the end of abortions. One of those happens to be the topic of this thread and the others are not.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 2, 2011 10:43 PM

....a topic that gets brought up in other unrelated threads.

Any body seen Vera Drake? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0383694/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2011 1:48 AM

MALACHITE

getting away with murder. It is killing a developing human in its most vulnerable state -- while it is still in utero with no way of defending itself. (Humans develop through at least the first few decades of life -- yes, the most rapid development occurs while they are in utero, but there are significant physical, emotional and structural changes that occur outside the womb. For example, through brain changes during puberty, a human develops the capacity for abstract thought. This is a huge change from the concrete reasoning abilities of prepubescent children. Anyways... when do humans get the right to life? How is that decision made? At 20 weeks in utero, most humans are considered viable -- but they really aren't without a lot of professional, external interventions. Even after birth, an infant is entirely dependent on external interventions to feed, clothe and nurture it).

In most cases, a woman has a right to choose who she sleeps with and whether she uses birth control (or whether she wants to insist that the guy use birth control). That right to choose becomes more complicated once there is a new individual in the picture -- even if that individual is totally dependent. Now sometimes, you can justify abortion as being a necessary evil (risk of mom's life, product of rape), but it is still killing and it is still an indicator that things happen in this world that are not ideal.

Anyways, Happytrader, I just posted to let you know that not everyone on fireflyfans.net is opposed to your viewpoint.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2011 2:30 AM

HARDWARE

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Don't know what MD would say but your tepid concern for adults being killed is inconsistent with a general regard for the sacredness of human life.

More hilarity from the keyboard of my favorite troll. Human life sacred? Where the Hell did you get the idea that humanity holds human life sacred? You're projecting your beliefs onto the species. Sanctity of life is something politicians trot out when they are schilling for votes. Humans are a competitive, tribal species. Us and them, and if comes down to one or the other, it's going to be us. Screw them. There are plenty of examples where humans have gone on genocidal rampages against other groups. There are almost as many examples where humans have gone on rampages within their own groups. I'm not talking about spree killing by an individual. I'm talking about death counts in the millions, PER INSTANCE.

All of my politics line up. I'm pro death penalty, pro gun and pro abortion. Humans are not an endangered species. Our problems with polution would be over if we had less people, say no more than 1/10th of the current global population.

Maybe, maybe if a child was a finite resource we would feel differently about them. If each woman could only have one child at a time, then maybe we'd be able to weigh the actual value of that little life. But our biology is against us on that idea and we can crank 'em out assembly line style. Hard to value a small child as an individual when you've got two ahead of it and two behind it.

But this is one of the hot button issues that politicians distract us with when it comes time to select a candidate. Rather than focus on real issues that affect our day to day lives like the record of the incumbent, there is an unspoken agreement to wrestle over these high profile issues that there will NEVER be agreement on.

And as usual, I'll weigh in on the side of freedom. When someone wants a product or action made illegal I will almost invariably choose to not restrict it. Misuse will happen with any technology.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2011 2:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
Why don't you go play Dr. Phil somewhere else. It's obvious you care more about inferring or imagining an individual's inconsistencies than taking the time to understand a position not your own.

Just ignore it Happy. She does the same thing to me, or whoever she feels like picking on at the moment. If you ignore it, she will eventually go attack someone else.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2011 3:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
I've already said I am against killing of any kind, including wars, murders, executions and abortions. I'm also against folks acting like douches, but I'm don't believe in taking away your free speech.

I think you and I can have an interesting debate, since we share a lot of common values and premises. We both believe abortion is murder. We are both against killing of any kind. We both believe in free speech rights for douchebags.

Yet, I am "pro-choice" and you are "pro-life." What's the difference?

In our debate, I wouldn't accuse you of all those silly strawmen you are being attacked with now.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2011 3:32 AM

MALACHITE

Canttakesky said: "In our debate, I wouldn't accuse you of all those silly strawmen you are being attacked with now."

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with that assessment as well.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2011 3:56 AM

MALACHITE

Hey Niki,
MW.com has fetus defined as "an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth". Other sources say it is about 3 months. When you are saying that you oppose late term abortions because the fetus is a child at that point, you mean anything after the first 2-3 months? Or, if not, what, in your mind, is the point at which a fetus becomes a child?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2011 8:08 AM

Thanks all.

CTS, I will not assume I already know your psychology or motivations cause I would rather listen to you

but I'm guessing you are "pro-choice" in abortion and most other situations because you respect a persons right to make the right decision first and foremost. Part of me agrees with that, I mean can you really say you 'made the right decision' when you actually had no choice in the matter?

The problem with abortion is there is an innocent life on the line who doesn't get a say in that decision, so I am against the right to choose overriding another's right to live.

I'm also a mite embarrassed I let my self get troll'd rather thoroughly on this.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2011 11:33 AM

I think its a bit rich to call Ikiki a troll, just because he/she has an opposing point of view and a way of arguing that you don't like. Under that criteria, most of FFF.net would be considered trolls to me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2011 11:41 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Well then... let me be trollish.

None of you have said whether you think its ok to use abortion as a form of birth control.

What?

Is it ok to frak around all the time then oops... caught preggers... get an abortion?

Is that not disgusting?

Yes. It is a right. I acknowledge this. But a right abused, much of the time.

And why?

Cus its too damn hard.

Its tough to raise a child.

So no worries. Just suck it out.

I keep saying this, and no one listens. Its such a simple word.

Responsibility.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2011 12:02 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Mal,

Quote:
When you are saying that you oppose late term abortions

You misinterpreted me. I’ve said I oppose abortion, period, but I put the right of a woman to choose what she does with her own body above my own PERSONAL opposition to abortion.

As to when a fetus becomes a person, that's not up to me to judge unless it pertained to me personally. I just don't buy that a zygote is a person and commands more "respect for life" than someone on death row.

Wulf:

Quote:
None of you have said whether you think its ok to use abortion as a form of birth control.

I said that QUITE clearly, and I think you’d find the majority of those here would feel the same, they just haven’t addressed it. So you’re wrong.

Quote:
And why?

Cus its too damn hard.

Its tough to raise a child.

How the hell would you know? How the hell would you know how tough it is to BEAR a child and go through birth? It’s easy for men to make sweeping judgments about what’s responsibility and what’s not when they don’t have to deal with it themselves. How about going after all the pricks who push a vulnerable girl into letting them fuck her then vanish the minute they find out she’s pregnant? Or all the men who simply walk away, be they husband or otherwise? Or the religious dicks who scare a woman into not using birth control...or not even TEACHING about birth control? Why do we never talk about THAT aspect of it??

Like,

Quote:
Is it ok to frak around all the time then oops... got her preggers...I’m outta here...

Mal,

Quote:
When you are saying that you oppose late term abortions

You misinterpreted me. I’ve said I oppose abortion, period, but I put the right of a woman to choose what she does with her own body above my own PERSONAL opposition to abortion.

Wulf:

Quote:
None of you have said whether you think its ok to use abortion as a form of birth control.

I said that QUITE clearly, and I think you’d find the majority of those here would feel the same, they just haven’t addressed it. So you’re wrong.

Quote:
And why?

Cus its too damn hard.

Its tough to raise a child.

How the hell would you know? How the hell would you know how tough it is to BEAR a child and go through birth? It’s easy for men to make sweeping judgments about what’s responsibility and what’s not when they don’t have to deal with it themselves. How about going after all the pricks who push a girl into letting them fuck her then vanish the minute they find out she’s pregnant? Or all the men who simply walk away from their wives and children when things get tough? Or the religious dicks who scare a woman into not using birth control...or not even TEACHING about birth control? Why do we never talk about the MALE side of responsibility??

Like,

Quote:
Is it ok to frak around all the time then oops... got her preggers...I’m outta here...

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2011 12:26 PM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Well, the whole idea is that its a WOMANS right to choose, isn't?

I mean that IS what is hyped, right?

You want to talk about a mans place in it all?

Then good grief, at THAT point you are talking about a FAMILY.

But yet, its all about the WOMANS right to choose.

So you have a crux. Is it BOTH of the parents right to choose? or not?

Is it about actual families, or the ease of women?

Then you get into what ACTUALLY makes a family. A man and a woman creating a child, and raising that child. Does that make a family? Or only one slice of family life?

Bitter much Niki?

If it truly IS a womans right to choose, then you are saying its only HER right to create a family. So why SHOULD the man stick around?

BUT, if its not JUST her right, then that means the MAN has a say.

And if he doesn't then why the hell should he stick around?

Bad way to start a family, being on the shit-end of the stick.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2011 12:49 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Bitter? Hell, no; I was never in that position. ANGRY about the different responsibilties of men and women when it comes to reproduction and that it's always the woman who bears the "responsibility" when it comes to abortion? You bedda believe it!

So, if a man can't choose whether a woman bears a child or not, there's no reason for him to stick around, eh? Even if they're not married, apparently. Talk about "ease".

Got news for you, I'd bet more than half of teenage pregnancies aren't because girls "chose" to get pregnant, or even to be fucked, but got pressured by those raging male hormones, pushed, blackmailed, and all the other manipulations guys have been so good at since time immemorial. Yeah, sure there are girls who are into it themselves, but not the vast majority.

So a guy pressures a girl into letting him fuck her...she gets pregnant...how many of them stick around to be responsible?? That's "choice", too, isn't it?

I'm not talking about families; families are in the vast minority when it comes to abortion. The debate is mostly about women too poor, too young, on their own, raped, victims of incest, who should have the right no to bear the result of some guy doing his thing. I imagine we all agree that a woman screwing around then using abortion as post-coital birth control is horrible, unconscionable and just plain wrong. It's the rest of the pregnancies we're debating, so can we at least keep it on track.

To clarify: It's not about "families". Nor is it about the "ease" of a woman...my gawd, what a way to phrase it! Got that?

Quote:
If it truly IS a womans right to choose, then you are saying its only HER right to create a family. So why SHOULD the man stick around?

If a woman gets pregnant and wants to keep the baby, then unless she has the money and ability to raise the child on her own, it's the GUY's choice whether to make a "family" out of it or not.

It's stupid to put it in the context of a man's choice in a marriage, but you're reasoning, that if pregnancy revolves around family and that's why a guy shouldn't stick around if it's not his choice whether she has the baby or not, is absurd.

You're bitching about the "ease" of a woman and how hard it is to raise kids...I'm saying it's also about the "ease" of a man and his willingness to take responsibility for MAKING a family and accepting the burden of raising the child...and that is rarely the situation, so why you're even putting it in those terms is beyond me.

Quote:
BUT, if its not JUST her right, then that means the MAN has a say.

Exactly what proportion of abortions are had by women who have the option of sharing the responsibility with the man who got her pregnant? Damned few, I'll bet.

In other words, guys rarely come into it, except to try and decide for women they don't even KNOW that those women should bear the child. Guys rarely hang around if they get someone pregnant and they're not married, and many don't hang around even if they ARE married. Shall we get into percentages of men who leave their families, whatever age the children are, as opposed to how many women do? So which sex is made to own the majority of the responsibility?

Quote:
Bad way to start a family, being on the shit-end of the stick

You betcha. And it's usually women on the short end, STUCK with making a one-parent family!

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2011 12:53 PM

Quote:
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response

Or perhaps we're calling her a troll because she asks off topic questions aimed at exposing a perceived (perhaps nonexistent) hypocrisy within an individual rather than focusing on the topic at hand. Her/his behavior is not unique to this thread. I think you are incorrect in that many on FFF are trolls and perhaps most even have troll'd.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2011 12:56 PM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

lol

"I'd bet more than half of teenage pregnancies aren't because girls "chose" to get pregnant, or even to be fucked, but got pressured by those raging male hormones, pushed, blackmailed, and all the other manipulations guys have been so good at since time immemorial."

So what about the other half?

Again, I believe abortion is a necessary evil.

But, putting it in a cute box and calling it a "womans right to choose"... well thats sort of glossing over ALL the things that are involved, right?

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2011 1:05 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

What ABOUT the other half? What's your point? Given we've agreed abortion is a horrible form of birth control, I'm speaking to why a lot of young women GET pregnant without intending to, which is where most abortions come into it. What's your point?

How about the single woman who practices all the right kinds of protection, but it fails and she gets pregnant? If she should be forced to bring that life into the world, shouldn't whoever got her pregnant be equally forced to stick around and raise the child? But are they? EVER? Maybe if the woman fights for it, she gets monetary child support, but nothing else. Isn't that something about "ease"? The guy gets to walk away with no other responsibility than "paying off" that new life.

The point I've been TRYING to make is that it shouldn't be all on the woman TO choose, but that most abortions happen because women ARE on their own, guys don't stick around to take the responsibility which, if they did, might well make the woman quite happy to bear the child and help him build a family.

It's not a "cute box" to say it's about a woman's right to choose...MEN ALREADY HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE by just walking out the door. Why isn't ANY emphasis put on the fact that men should share EQUAL responsibility for bringing life into the world, whether they intended to or not? No, it's all about the woman, you never hear about the other "donor".

Women choose to donate their egg, their uterus, and sometimes the rest of their lives to take responsibility for a life, wether they CHOSE to have it or not; men choose to donate their sperm, and after that can disappear and society has no problem with it. That's my point.

But you seem to be incapable of grapsing that; you're turning yourself inside out trying to take it out of the equation. I give up; to you it's ALL about whether the woman should have the right to choose or not. Okay; go back to your fantasy videos, they're easier to grasp, obviously.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2011 1:12 PM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Graffic, but true.

Don't want, don't bust.

And again, I've already (and most folks agree) that abortions are a necessary evil. So whats the issue?

I think, however, that if a woman has 3 abortions...maybe its time she considered another form of birth control?

Not saying it should be forced on her, mind. But there are shots that help...

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2011 1:13 PM

All good, Niki. I'm with you on most of what you have posted, except that I don't oppose abortion per se.

I wanted to add to something that I touched on earlier, that people often cite adoption as an alternative to abortion, but often haven't thought that through about what it will mean for a woman.
Partially that is because there is this stuck thinking about who has abortions, that only teenage trailer trash who are depicted as some sort of crazed fucking machines have unwanted pregnancies....

It's actually quite hard to find stats on who has abortions and why,and I think that can be partially attributed to fear of the extreme elements of the anti abortion crowd getting their hands on personal details, and because of the shame associated with abortion because of prevailing attitudes. From what I know of both professionally and personally, women from all ages and all walks of life, economic status have this procedures, that is white, black, hispanic, christian, jewish, atheist, married, single, teenage to 40 year olds. And they do it for lots and lots of different reasons. And you know what, contraception fails. Women get pregnant having taken precautions, so if you are having sex, you run the risk of pregnancy.

Imagine a 35 year old single mother who has sex - good grief what a slut :eyeroll: and for whatever reason finds herself pregnant. Said woman works to support her existing children, and financially she is struggling already, really struggling. If she has another child, she'll either have to leave work, so how will she support her kids? Even if she goes back to work, she still has to take a period of time off and then pay creche fees, I'm not sure how expensive they are in the US, but they are EXPENSIVE here.

So if she decides that she doesn't want to keep the baby, she has two options, adoption or abortion. So I'm going to ask you how it would be for her, being pregnant, getting on with her life and her mothering and her work. Do you know how hard that would be for her, knowing that she was giving up the baby, how she would have to live with everyone knowing that. Do you know how often people talk to you about 'baby' when you are pregnant, and pat your stomach and ask you when the due date wouold be. What the reactions of her children will be? It's just not possible for people to go into seclusion for months to hide an unwanted pregnancy. It seems to me that for most women the choice is whether to keep the baby and have it terminated, and this will probably sound awful to many of you, but with many of my clients I think they made the wrong decision, they should have aborted, because their life was really, really hard after the birth of that child, and they often (not always) resent it, and have a crappy relationship with it, and then you get a whole host of behavioural and emotional issues from the child.

So I say, every child should be a wanted one or a happy surprise.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2011 1:25 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Oh, man, bee-utiful, Magons. That's another aspect we haven't touched on, and that makes it so much more human.

Wulf, there IS no disagreement as I know we both believe it's a "necessary evil". It was a "debate", a sharing of differing viewpoints--admittedly a failed one since you don't seem to be able to conceive of my points, just toss crap back at me, but I tried.

Two people can agree on a basic premise yet disagree on many aspects of that premise. That's all.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2011 1:29 PM

Thank you Magons for providing a more realistic scenario to discuss. I'm sick of every example involving a 'slut' or a rape case.

I'm not unsympathetic, but a child's life is worth more than a reputation and social discomfort. Giving up a child is also a big decision, maybe having to think about it for 9 months ain't a bad idea either. What we should focus on doing is making things better for the mother and child, actually solving their problems rather than removing them via abortion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2011 1:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
...but I'm guessing you are "pro-choice" in abortion and most other situations because you respect a persons right to make the right decision first and foremost.

Yep.

Quote:
The problem with abortion is there is an innocent life on the line who doesn't get a say in that decision, so I am against the right to choose overriding another's right to live.

The trick question here is, IS there an innocent life on the line?

I think so. And you do too.

But if Jane doesn't think this "growth" is anymore "lifelike" than a tumor, should she be prohibited from getting rid of it? (Some tumors, btw, have little hands and feet grown in them, so the analogy isn't *that* far-fetched.)

The bottom line for me is: Do I get to impose my definition of life on Jane? Is she not allowed to make up her own mind on this question? Must she be forced to agree with me?

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2011 1:53 PM

Happy, one thing I can guarantee you, there will always be abortions, no matter how much better you make things for anyone and regardless of whether they are legal or not. History has shown us that. I do think having a good welfare net will make it easier for women to make the decision to have the child, but it won't solve everything.

I also know of those who have been anti abortion until faced with that decision themselves, and then decided to abort. It's not just social 'discomfort' that you have to endure, it would be emotionally and psychological torment as far as I can imagine. To my mind, you'd have to be quite an unusually special person to go through that.

You still haven't commented on my posts which described IVF procedure and given your opinions on that. When is a baby a baby? What makes the zygot different from sperm and egg, or are they special too.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2011 1:58 PM

Right, let me track that down again, lost it somewhere between post in the troll marsh. Let me refresh my memory on that and I'll edit this message and add a response.

EDIT:

Quote:
Re IVF - women are given drugs to grow more eggs in a cycle, which are then harvested and implanted with sperm. Sometimes they can have a dozen or so embryos per cycle, if they are lucky. Embryos are implanted after a few days. The reason they harvest so many is that so few survive or are viable, or will 'take' in a cycle. Sometimes women are left with spare embryos, which are usually destroyed. I've known plenty of Christians who'd blanche at the idea of abortion, willingly and happily go through this procedure. But then most people are able to twist their beliefs to suit their circumstances in my view.

Curious word choice, using 'Christians' specifically rather than RTL'ers, but I'm sure you're jonesing to catch Christians in hypocrisy. It's not very hard, 'specially when their are so many Christians and they also happen to suffer from the 'human' condition. I'm going have to think on the prospect of "creating" life in that manner but I can tell you I am opposed to destroying all those 'spares.'

On issues like this where lives are on the line, especially lives that do not get a say in the matter, I would prefer to err on the side of caution. Aborting something that 'might' be alive is unacceptable. If it 'might' be alive then for all intents and purposes it is alive for the making of that decision. Because the zygote 'can' be alive and 'might' be alive, for the purposes of my decision it is alive.

Quick additional edit:

IMO 'life' can begin as soon as the zygote, so for decision making I'd prefer we assumed it 'does' begin at zygote.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2011 3:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:

Curious word choice, using 'Christians' specifically rather than RTL'ers, but I'm sure you're jonesing to catch Christians in hypocrisy.

I'm thinking of people I know. They were very Christian, but not right to lifers, or not stridently as far as I was aware. They believed in souls etc.

As I said before, from my observation, people have an amazing capacity to juggle their beliefs once they have a need...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2011 4:00 PM