Abortion...

[glenn1]

My take on the issue. Abortion is morally wrong. Everyone knows in their inner soul that's the case, and it couldn't be otherwise; you can self-rationalize it all you want by saying that a fetus is simply a lump of tissue, etc. but deep down you know that's a cop-out. However, the fact that it's morally wrong doesn't make the extreme contra-position (prohibiting abortion altogether) the morally correct one either. The public has essentially made peace with itself by the current state of affairs, but just like all the other moral debates of humanity, this one will eventually be definitively decided one way or the other. The current status quo can't hold indefinitely, as the moral conflicts in the current approach aren't really sustainable. Which side will end up prevailing is anyone's guess.

 

[Moonbeam]

I am curious though, which sentence did you have difficulty comprehending? You quoted a paragraph but complained about a sentence..........Perhaps I can dumb it down for you.


Thank you Corn, that was really all you needed to say.

I had trouble with the paragraph because it was your whole thought, but tried to isolate my guesstimation of what you might be referring to one sentence or perhaps even phrase, the one from which I left the vital 'because'. The exchange went like this:

Geekbabe: I'm sorry,I don't feel the need to punish women for being sexual by forcing them to carry unwanted pregnancies to term.

Corn: But it's perfectly OK to punish a man for being sexual by forcing him to pay for unwanted children for 18 years.........Nice double standard you have there.

Moonbeam: No double standard there, Corn. In the case of abortion the father and mother get off scott free and in the case of birth the father and mother 'get punished' for eighteen years.

Corn: It appears that you've misunderstood the argument given by GB, and as such my reply. Here it is, with emphasis added for your benefit:

My reply was in regard to the "why" for which said "punishment" was being dolled out. Her double standard was that it's fine to punish a man for being sexual (because, you know, lots of men are liars and screw over their women, it's their fault the women gets pregnant, etc.....) but not fine to punish the woman for the same "crime".
-------------------------

I don't get the whole thing in bold. My guess is that you are so conversant with and accepting of assumptions you make that you talk in a code you assume others understand. Not a criticism, it's very common. I don't know. I might have done it once or twice. Of course not lately. Perhaps you could make your point in different words. I get the impression it's an anti-feminist manifesto of some kind.

 

[Moonbeam]

Carb: Moonie to me abortion is all about selfishness, the bottom line is the woman is terminating a future humans life for her own convenience. Whether it be she doesn?t want the biological changes, doesn?t want humiliation or embarrassment, doesn?t want the financial burden it doesn?t matter IMO she's being selfish in the act. Putting her image/finances/reputation above that of the child inside her. Adoption centers can't get enough children.

I rarely talk about this subject because to me everyone on both sides is hypocritical killing is killing and I think its done out of selfishness and is wrong. Deathrow or planned parenthood all evil and I think cheapens life.
----------------------------------
Women are not baby mills for adoption centers. When science comes up with a way to remove any fetus and implant it in a man where he can carry it for nine months and give it to an adoption center, I'll expect to see you at the front of the line.

I think you are confusing your sense of right and wrong, one I share, by the way, with a right to compel others to follow your code. I think abortion is selfish, but I think the nature of life demands that women have the right to be selfish. Parenting is slavery. Nobody should have to be a slave unwillingly. It's just an accident of evolution that we are sexual and half the race doesn't have to face abortion as a reality for them. Have whatever opinion you want, but don't vote to take away the choice of others.

Let he who is not selfish cast the first stone.

----------------
-----------------
Glenn1:My take on the issue. Abortion is morally wrong. Everyone knows in their inner soul that's the case, and it couldn't be otherwise; you can self-rationalize it all you want by saying that a fetus is simply a lump of tissue, etc. but deep down you know that's a cop-out. However, the fact that it's morally wrong doesn't make the extreme contra-position (prohibiting abortion altogether) the morally correct one either. The public has essentially made peace with itself by the current state of affairs, but just like all the other moral debates of humanity, this one will eventually be definitively decided one way or the other. The current status quo can't hold indefinitely, as the moral conflicts in the current approach aren't really sustainable. Which side will end up prevailing is anyone's guess.
-------------------------
Perhaps I should add for consideration on this point, your sig:

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies... those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." (C.S. Lewis)

Someone at last has gotten to the crux of the matter, "Abortion is morally wrong. Everyone knows in their inner soul that's the case, and it couldn't be otherwise; you can self-rationalize it all you want by saying that a fetus is simply a lump of tissue, etc. but deep down you know that's a cop-out." It is exactly this point that makes the abortion issue so difficult. I feel exactly as you describe. I personally would not get an abortion if I were a woman in my present circumstance. Mine is, however, not the only circumstance. I hinted at your argument when I asked where the importance of this issue was coming from. Don't want to look back for my exact words. What I see is that the human heart can't make a distinction between the notion of a fertilized egg being human, a life, and the horror imposed on us by our biology. Women cannot choose to be pregnant or not if they have sex. This is an accident of fate. Then along comes the human heart and says this amoeba cell is a human. Yes it is. You have here a crushing paradox. Do you force a woman who may even have taken precautions not to have a child to have it if by accident she gets pregnant? Insemination is the will of nature, not the mother. Do you force her to have the child because your heart can't help but say human? By the arrogance of heart do you force another?s will. In this one area I think we cannot. It is important, I think, in this one instance to say that yes this is murder of a human on the level of amoebae, blastula, or unconscious coal, but it is justified because of the joke nature played on us. In this issue to follow your deepest emotions leads to calamity for the life of women. Murder of something without independent life or consciousness of its own existence, real self-reflective awareness, distasteful as it may be, has got to be an option. What do we do with our pets when they get old and start to suffer terribly. Life isn't neat easy or pain free. Pragmatic solutions may stink, but they are pragmatic.

 

[Geekbabe]

Originally posted by: Corn
I think you misunderstand my point GB. I'm all for having a "parent" who walks away from a family (such as in divorce, etc) take fiscal responsibility for any children he's leaving behind. My argument is that if you are going to give women the "choice" whether or not they want to be enslaved to the care of a child for 18 years, why not give that choice to the man before the baby comes along?

There is a huge difference between being occasionally able to force money out of a person and in providing the types of parenting care that children require.Corn,I damn near died having one of my kids and I broke my ass rearing them as a single mother,let me tell you many were the days when I wished my obligation began and ended with the writing of a check!

 

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: Corn
I think you misunderstand my point GB. I'm all for having a "parent" who walks away from a family (such as in divorce, etc) take fiscal responsibility for any children he's leaving behind. My argument is that if you are going to give women the "choice" whether or not they want to be enslaved to the care of a child for 18 years, why not give that choice to the man before the baby comes along?

There is a huge difference between being occasionally able to force money out of a person and in providing the types of parenting care that children require.Corn,I damn near died having one of my kids and I broke my ass rearing them as a single mother,let me tell you many were the days when I wished my obligation began and ended with the writing of a check!

I think that my mother would probably be able to agree with you on that last staement . Although my father is still active in my life, despite a divorce, my mom has sacrificed a great deal of her time and effort to be a great mother to me. Exponentially more than my dad has, but she doesn't rub it in and its mostly because of her that still know my father today. From this vantage point, I would like to say that I don't think that the father should have any reason whatsoever to terminate a child against the will of the mother. To say that I find that thought disgusting is an understatement. Corn, would I be correct if I figured that you were (or would most likely be) one of those fathers who would rather leave state then pay child support. :| Mine isn't like that, but I've seen several who are.

 

[Zebo]

When science comes up with a way to remove any fetus and implant it in a man where he can carry it for nine months and give it to an adoption center, I'll expect to see you at the front of the line.

You think? Not now, but I said as much on the first page and we are on the same page basically. I still think you are rationalizing.

I'm sure pragmatic is the elminate all crimminals, everyone with down syndrome, all drunks, sloths, etctectec. You just draw the line at a differnet place.

 

[Geekbabe]

Originally posted by: Spyro

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: Corn
I think you misunderstand my point GB. I'm all for having a "parent" who walks away from a family (such as in divorce, etc) take fiscal responsibility for any children he's leaving behind. My argument is that if you are going to give women the "choice" whether or not they want to be enslaved to the care of a child for 18 years, why not give that choice to the man before the baby comes along?

There is a huge difference between being occasionally able to force money out of a person and in providing the types of parenting care that children require.Corn,I damn near died having one of my kids and I broke my ass rearing them as a single mother,let me tell you many were the days when I wished my obligation began and ended with the writing of a check!

I think that my mother would probably be able to agree with you on that last staement . Although my father is still active in my life, despite a divorce, my mom has sacrificed a great deal of her time and effort to be a great mother to me. Exponentially more than my dad has, but she doesn't rub it in and its mostly because of her that still know my father today. From this vantage point, I would like to say that I don't think that the father should have any reason whatsoever to terminate a child against the will of the mother. To say that I find that thought disgusting is an understatement. Corn, would I be correct if I figured that you were (or would most likely be) one of those fathers who would rather leave state then pay child support. :| Mine isn't like that, but I've seen several who are.

You know,with my kids I just tried to be really positive with them.WEhen things were hard I streesed pulling together as a team.I also tried to make my low budget solutions to problems seem like great fun.I also bit my tongue till it bleed on the subject of their father.I love the 3 of em more than anything and my biggest regert was not being able to give them more materially and in being so tired and stressed from working so much that I didn't always have the time/energy to do more things with them.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm sure pragmatic is the elminate all crimminals, everyone with down syndrome, all drunks, sloths, etctectec. You just draw the line at a differnet place.
-----------------------
Well if you put it that way, why not if it's in vetro. The problem is that imagination makes real what isn't at all.

 

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
You know,with my kids I just tried to be really positive with them.WEhen things were hard I streesed pulling together as a team.I also tried to make my low budget solutions to problems seem like great fun.I also bit my tongue till it bleed on the subject of their father.I love the 3 of em more than anything and my biggest regert was not being able to give them more materially and in being so tired and stressed from working so much that I didn't always have the time/energy to do more things with them.

That sounds like my mom too Except for the fact that I was always both more mature for my age and had a large set of ears, so even though she really tried hard to gloss over my father's faults, they were still pretty clear to me. I have a cousin though, who hasn' really been as lucky. His father skipped town and his mother isn't realy a very dedicated mom. It certainly doesn't help things that he's an extremly bright 6 year old. Sometimes I wonder what people are thinking when they have kids and then decide to drop, neglect, or leave them behind. Interestingly enough, its usually the fathers who are at fault in a failed relationship, unfortunately most don't realize what went wrong until after a collapse and even thn only if they seek externel help. I think this probably has something to do with the general *ultra-macho* concept that exists among men these days. That combined with the changing definition and role of "family" has definitely put a lot of stress on both kids and parents. Its still amazing how much both single moms and dads are able to accomplish, despite the benefit of a double income household or the "typical" one full-time job/one kid-oriented oriented parent household. No matter how bad things really were, I've always lived a good life I'll be graduting from high school next year, so I'm thinking that something worked right

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I'm sure pragmatic is the elminate all crimminals, everyone with down syndrome, all drunks, sloths, etctectec. You just draw the line at a differnet place.
-----------------------
Well if you put it that way, why not if it's in vetro. The problem is that imagination makes real what isn't at all.

Why not in vivo too? Girls are smarter but I have no memory of anything before 3, would'nt that be alright>?W

 

[Moonbeam]

Oops, wrong word. I meant embryonic rather than on the plate. What you meant was conscious memory.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Oops, wrong word. I meant embryonic rather than on the plate. What you meant was conscious memory.

Haha we were both wrong. Anyway moon I don't quite understand how you are drawing line still? To me it's all killing because I'm really 31 and nine months.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Screw yourself, fool. I rip your arms off.

Better watch it... SnapIt's "got the power" to rip your arms right out of your sockets!

Yeah, great argument there big-brain... what the matter, mommy didn't wanna tuck you in tonight... booohooo... huh?

The Snap - I got the power.. *sigh* just search the net, i am sure you will find the lyrics somewhere... maniac, brainiac, on top of the game, i'm the lyrical jesse james...

What argument?

That was my point... you know... sarcasm... you couldn't make an argument so instead.. you posted crap...

It wasn't my intention to make an argument, nor was I looking to make one.

 

[Moonbeam]

What I'm trying to say, Carb, and it isn't easy, is that if we follow the obvious, intellectually satisfying, emotionally satisfying notion that life begins at inception, which it obviously does, and then extrapolate form that the legal imperative that the mother must carry any pregnancy to term, we create a monster, the enslavement of women, with all the horror one could care to impute in that scenario, the 11 year old raped by a congenital idiot or her father, etc. All this happens because we reproduce via two sexes, cannot control fertilization, are powerfully motivated to have it, and experience empathy for a fertilized egg. We are a cosmic joke caught in a cosmic paradox. It's the devil and the deep blue sea. The only rational escape is to do as much as possible to prevent unwanted pregnancy and allow abortion for those caught in the joke. You have the choice of applying your empathy to an amoeba or a conscious physically mature girl or woman. Let her choose. You want to force her to donate to charity by being unselfish. There are times when it's unwise to be charitable, like when you can't afford it. The significance of a fertilized egg is an abstraction. If you cannot choose not to conceive physically, then you have to be able to do so consciously. We humans have both heads and the tools to use them. You might as well argue we shouldn't treat disease. We're interfering with the natural order. How can you put down your dog and not an amoeba?

 

[LunarRay]

The very food consumed by a woman has the potential to be part of the fetus - think about it - so therefore the steer or the turnip having the potential to become part of the building blocks that create life should be held in high regard. no?

 

[Zebo]

She is killing my brother/sister moon not treating desease. I have a hard time accepting it however you try and rationalizse it. However I would'nt vote to resrict her right for some reason I don't understand and I believe if men were the incubators this would be less of an issue. As I eluded to earlier, I wonder how much my 31 years nine months age plays a part in this issue The amoeba only lives an hour or so therefore can't defend his friends.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
She is killing my brother/sister moon not treating desease. I have a hard time accepting it however you try and rationalizse it. However I would'nt vote to resrict her right for some reason I don't understand and I believe if men were the incubators this would be less of an issue. As I eluded to earlier, I wonder how much my 31 years nine months age plays a part in this issue The amoeba only lives an hour or so therefore can't defend his friends.

What if she miscarries because she is ill, or fell, or ate too much, did drugs, or got all stressed out in an argument with you over getting an abortion? Are each of those equal?

 

[Zebo]

My sister Mary asked me to drive her once to you know where, all I said is OK and lots of hugs.

I don't argue in real life.

 

[Moonbeam]

If men were the incubators, Carb, the ruling class, women, would be at war with each other trying to get abortion outlawed and men manacled to beds till the baby is born and men would be marching in the streets demanding liberal judges.

I don't think I'm trying to rationalize it. I see it as the killing of a human blueprint in the planning stages for the sake of pragmatic sanity. Any present alternative is even worse. There is no self conscious entity aware of it's impending extinction, There is nothing that's aware of death. You are supplying that awareness by imagining the final product from the blueprint. Alternatively you can condemn a woman to a life of conscious suffering. I see it as tempering the arrogance of emotionalism in the face of reality. We are trapped by a cosmic joke.

 

[Moonbeam]

Uppity turnips are a real problem. The arrogance of carbon.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Uppity turnips are a real problem. The arrogance of carbon.

Turnips don't have spores is the real problem, they I think are jealous and become arrogant and controlliing.

Reminds me of a boss I had not all that bright but a stickler for rules.

 

[Geekbabe]

Just to let you dudes know I am enjoying this discussion but am going to be quite busy over this holiday weekend.Please don't view this as any sort of admission of defeat of my viewpoint,I'll be back

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Corn

I'm sorry,I don't feel the need to punish women for being sexual by forcing them to carry unwanted pregnancies to term.

But it's perfectly OK to punish a man for being sexual by forcing him to pay for unwanted children for 18 years.........Nice double standard you have there.

Come on Geekbabe, where's your retort?

Or maybe you're just sore about the past mistreatment of women and would rather have reverse sexism than equality. I suppose you'd like monetary reparations too?

My answer is the same as it's always been.You cannot equate money with the risks associated with pregnancy and birth.Also it isn't just men who support children.I'm divorced and pretty much raised mine solo,including providing the bulk of their fiscal support.I know far more women who were/are in my position than I do sofa loafing bon bon eating women living large on child support payments.


Most women I know who have had abortions have done so with the full knowledge and agreement of their partner.The right to choose doesn't just benefit women,it also helps a great many men.

And my answer will be same as it always is. If women are given THE CHOICE of either going through those risks of pregnancy and birth, then why aren't men given A CHOICE of either paying child support or not. You don't seem to be able to grasp the concept that once the sperm and egg have collided, women have all the choice and men have none.

You're so bitter from your situation of having been dumped by your ex to raise the children by yourself that you can't see the inequality. I happen to agree that once both parents decide they want the child and give birth to it, that there should be equal responsibility to raise it. But I think a father should have the right to waive his responsibilities before the child is born. The mother has that right through abortion. Why shouldn't the father? Perhaps if the father were allowed to completely waive his rights and responsibilities within the same time period that an abortion is an option, you'd see more single women getting abortions. Then they couldn't just assume they'd bring a child into the world and have that monthly payment from the father to depend on. They'd have to make the conscious decision to do it completely by themselves.

 

[Moonbeam]

The answer to your complaint, Bober, is actually rather simple, I think. "If women are given THE CHOICE of either going through those risks of pregnancy and birth, then why aren't men given A CHOICE of either paying child support or not. You don't seem to be able to grasp the concept that once the sperm and egg have collided, women have all the choice and men have none." This is because men and women are equal but biologically different. If pregnancy meant that half the time men carried the baby, if we were biological beings of such a nature we could fertilize or be fertilized by sexual relations on a 50 50 basis we would of course have no name for male and female, but lets suppose that half of all such people were black and half white, and the white half got the rights women have today. In such a situation, your criticism would apply. The fact that only half of us are women and that half has the kids means that there are different windows of choice for each sex naturally from our biology. A man who wants no children has that period before sex to choose, and a woman has a longer legally defined period in which she can choose. The difference in windows is biological in origin. You had your moment of conception, as to which camp you would fall into. It was a random event, not anybody's fault. You could as easily have been female with the greater period of choice. Nature determined your sex and function, not you and not the woman. We are bound by nature to be what we are and to live with it as best we can. You want to spit into the wind. It would be just as appropriate to say of you that you are so blinded by your good old boys accustomed superior position in society that you hate it when women, even for biologically obvious reasons get an advantage, it threatens you and fills you with hate, no? I just know those horrible witches are smiling all the way to the bank.

 

[przero]

Are you saying it is HER child?