Then I guess I still wonder what your response is to this question:
Maybe you did already address that point...but I don't want to make an assumption about your position on that particular issue.
Mmm, I just started thinking about this... if a girl I was dating (not married to) and was sexually active with got pregnant, and she wanted an abortion, would I support her? Deny her?
Then I thought about it... if I decided, for some idiotic reason, to sleep with a woman before we were married (one of my few scruples)... why would I be so stupid as to let her get pregnant? There is birth control available today that rules out some 98-odd% chance of pregnancy. There are prophylactics that narrow that less-than-2% margin even more. The issue of an unplanned pregnancy should never even be considered. Of course, "accidents do happen".
That is assuming, of course, that I make the decision to be sexually active before marriage.
In the case of other people, whose actions I cannot judge... I cannot say. There is an irrational part of me that says that yes, life does begin at conception and not at some arbitrary point before or during birth - as a survivor of a three-and-a-half month premature birth, the prospect of me being considered legally dead at seven, eight, or eight and a half months is frightening. But, then, there is the liberal, contemporary part of my psyche that reinforces a woman's "right to choose". And, of course, a woman should always be given the option in the case of "rape and incest". (it would be interesting, however, to see statistics on those two oft-flouted possibilities - does this ever actually happen?)
In the end, I regret that I cannot form a decisive opinion on the matter. Until I am personally confronted with the issue, I have neither the experience nor the impetus to delve into the chasm that marks this sad, regrettable debate. I would hope that no woman is ever faced with the choice - having several women friends that have had to make the choice, it is an indescribably hard decision, marked with shame and persecution. I empathize with their pain, regret their choice, but... it is theirs to make. Hopefully, they can be at peace with their choices; in the meantime, and after, I will be supportive of them.
Then I thought about it... if I decided, for some idiotic reason, to sleep with a woman before we were married (one of my few scruples)... why would I be so stupid as to let her get pregnant? There is birth control available today that rules out some 98-odd% chance of pregnancy. There are prophylactics that narrow that less-than-2% margin even more. The issue of an unplanned pregnancy should never even be considered. Of course, "accidents do happen".
That is assuming, of course, that I make the decision to be sexually active before marriage.
In the case of other people, whose actions I cannot judge... I cannot say. There is an irrational part of me that says that yes, life does begin at conception and not at some arbitrary point before or during birth - as a survivor of a three-and-a-half month premature birth, the prospect of me being considered legally dead at seven, eight, or eight and a half months is frightening. But, then, there is the liberal, contemporary part of my psyche that reinforces a woman's "right to choose". And, of course, a woman should always be given the option in the case of "rape and incest". (it would be interesting, however, to see statistics on those two oft-flouted possibilities - does this ever actually happen?)
In the end, I regret that I cannot form a decisive opinion on the matter. Until I am personally confronted with the issue, I have neither the experience nor the impetus to delve into the chasm that marks this sad, regrettable debate. I would hope that no woman is ever faced with the choice - having several women friends that have had to make the choice, it is an indescribably hard decision, marked with shame and persecution. I empathize with their pain, regret their choice, but... it is theirs to make. Hopefully, they can be at peace with their choices; in the meantime, and after, I will be supportive of them.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
PastorDon, I don't actually define 'think' that way, but just for the sake of provocation, I would include you as one incapable of thinking on this issue and I would exclude you from a discussion because your mind is made up and inflexable. You are one of the certain. What possible harm could come of preempting you from the discussion since, if you had the power, you would preempt the right of women to an abortion. Isn't it better to abort a theocratic takeover before it happens. Who cares about your rights when if you are given them you will use them to take the rights of others. How am I different than you?
Moonbeam,
So you would exclude anyone from the discussion who has an informed opinion?
My opinion is somewhat based on the following thoughts:
1. A child in the womb is little different than a child outside the womb. Performing the intellectual exercise of reversing development until you have something that is obviously not a person gets you to a point well earlier than where babies are being aborted/killed.
2. It's not so much abortion I am against, as it is the killing of babies. If we could safely transplant the baby from one womb to another (possibly artificial) then there is no problem.
3. It's never a good idea to solve societal problems by killing a bunch of people.
Can my mind be changed? Easily. Demonstrate that it is the trip down the birth canal that makes us human. Show that two babies, equally developed, are not both people just because one is in the womb and one is outside.
Moonbeam,
So you would exclude anyone from the discussion who has an informed opinion?
My opinion is somewhat based on the following thoughts:
1. A child in the womb is little different than a child outside the womb. Performing the intellectual exercise of reversing development until you have something that is obviously not a person gets you to a point well earlier than where babies are being aborted/killed.
2. It's not so much abortion I am against, as it is the killing of babies. If we could safely transplant the baby from one womb to another (possibly artificial) then there is no problem.
3. It's never a good idea to solve societal problems by killing a bunch of people.
Can my mind be changed? Easily. Demonstrate that it is the trip down the birth canal that makes us human. Show that two babies, equally developed, are not both people just because one is in the womb and one is outside.
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
And don't forget, gopunk, that I added that the reason I would exclude Christian Fundies was because if they get the chance they will exclude me because they know they are right and I am wrong. I would just strike preemptively like Bush would, before they hit me.
Millennium, I don't have much to say to your points since I don't see much in them, but here goes:
You have yourself a deal Moonbeam. If you can find an organization that is currently accepting funding to allow this then I will match dollar for dollar any contributions you make up to 1000 dollars. Since you are talking out of your ass as usual you will not find any and you will also not donate any money.
(I have no interest in such a program because I don't oppose what women decide to do. That's the work of people who are sincere about allowing the child to continue it's growth, wouldn't you say? The reason you won't find any is because people like you, who claim they are interested in life aren't interested at all. You are interested in control or you would be looking for ways to have the child yourself especially not that I've shown you the way. Apparently you didn't even understand my point.)
The issue isn't about maintaining control over anyone. It is about allowing a life to continue on in its growth.
(Nope, as I just explained)
Maybe deep down you hope and pray that your ideas are sound and logical
(I think maybe it's you who's doing that praying),
but you know they are not. You just hope that you can throw your typical goobedly-beloved patriot out there that only your mindless drones will read it.
(Excepting you of course)
Men should have rights just as they will pay for the child(in most cases) if they pregnancy is allowed to go foward. I noticed you didn't reply to that part of TallGeese's post so I wanted to point it out to you.
(I did reply to it by denying the whole issue entirely. What point is there in addressing a sub issue when you reject the entire thesis)
I know your M.O. doesn't allow you to respond logically to points you could not win.
(Hehe, whatever that means. I usually hear that I'm a master at defeating any argument, no matter how sound simply by using some big words and baffling the bejesus out of everybody. Of course I would never do that, but that's what I usually hear. What I usually hear, in other words is some sort of complaint about me, but rarely a logical explanation of how I am wrong. Another incredible notion you seem to completely glide over is that if I'm right about control, do you think you'd be qualified to tell? Do you have the self knowledge to accurately and objectively assess that? You have to realize that when you pay a price that amounts to everything you ever valued for what you know, you may acquire, as a bonus, a deep insight into places where others are reluctant to go. But you'll have to take my word for that.
Do I have the self knowledge? I would have to say yes, but I seriously doubt you are qualified to begin with.
I'll submit to you that the odds of a first-trimester fetus living outside of the womb rapidly approaches zero.
Numark,
I really enjoyed you post. If the question is viability, then it is also just a matter of time.
If someone was critically ill, alive only due to artificial life support, would we be comfortable pulling the plug if we knew they had a 98% chance of full recovery in six to nine months?
Numark,
I really enjoyed you post. If the question is viability, then it is also just a matter of time.
If someone was critically ill, alive only due to artificial life support, would we be comfortable pulling the plug if we knew they had a 98% chance of full recovery in six to nine months?
This question brings up a totally different issue. In this case, we're talking about a being which has been viable for years, yet now may not be considered so. This is a different issue than abortion, where we're talking about a fetus, which has never been viable (at least in the first trimester). I see this as a vital difference between the two, and I feel that an analogy comparing them is invalid, as they are two totally different situations.
Regarding Hayabusarider's concern that not many addressed the topic...
Question: Why is Gianna a person outside the womb, but not inside the womb? (Is that the topic?)
If so then to answer I have to refer back to what I said earlier to the notion of biting off more than you can chew or telling such a whopper as to become trapped in your own exaggeration. The problem is with absolutes. Every time you create an absolute you create somewhere a situation where the application of the absolute is an absurdity. The topic is an example. If a fetus is not a person, but a baby is, what is the difference. And off we go on a logically absurd sleigh ride. There cannot be an absolute that differentiates these two things. Similarly, if viability becomes the issue, technology will push back the limits where we can bring a fertilized egg to life. Then we will have to save all kittens because now they can become life too. If a time machine becomes a reality we will have to go back in time and save every aborted fetus, every unfertilized ova that died in car crashes, every person who ever died and so on.
Absolutes are wonderful if you don't have the habit of thinking about the implications of ideas, but if you do, you are quickly lead into hell.
I feel that life begins at conception because I can imagine a potential human there. That makes every act of abortion an act of murder. But turned around, if you say that the zygote is sacred you enslave the body of the woman in which nothing but a freak of fate, the origin of sexual reproduction as a process and outgrowth of evolution, is the one to whom this applies. Does a woman have the right to determine if she wants to carry an unwanted child. Do others have the right to make her.
Life is sacred. Choice is sacred. Control over your own body is sacred. These absolutes are fundamental, but they also fundamentally conflict. Obviously the way to avoid all this is not to conceive an unwanted child. Another fundamental truth...
What people have to do, when faced with fundamentally challenging questions is to invent answers that satisfy, as best as possible. Some will seek one absolute over another. By introducing the notion of personal choice an element of egalitarianism is introduced. People can make their own individual compromises to these questions. It's a pragmatic way of navigating the absurdities of absolutes.
My personal view is that people who are unable to participate in a compromise over absolutes are fanatics, destructive of civilized society. They value their own opinion over the need to negotiate with others.
Personally, I cannot let go of the notion of the sanctity of life, but I draw a line at my own person. Recognizing that if I seek what satisfies me will imprison another, I have to make room for the other.
Some unpleasant thoughts: If life is not absolutely sanctified is there a slippery slope. Can we kill babies? Up to what age? Where is the line? Is it a line? There can be no doubt that the earlier an unwanted pregnancy that will be aborted is aborted the better for the ethical palate of an increasing number of people. If the decision is going to have to be a secular decision between unpleasant alternatives, the sooner it is made the better. Birth control is best, the morning after pill next, and so on. Clearly the less human the fetus the less imaginatively generated emotional identification will take place.
I would say that an aborted fetus that can live is a bit late to kill. To infer from that the notion that time will make all fetuses similarly viable is interesting and perhaps even possibly applicable. It would be something that civil people will have to take into reckoning.
What a secular society does not need is the agitation of those who know all the answers supplanting the consensus building process with preconceived faith derived religious law. The goal of such people is to gain control. They fear ambiguity because it reveals the bargain they made to exchange salvation for reason. The Taliban are among us. They are the people who know.
Question: Why is Gianna a person outside the womb, but not inside the womb? (Is that the topic?)
If so then to answer I have to refer back to what I said earlier to the notion of biting off more than you can chew or telling such a whopper as to become trapped in your own exaggeration. The problem is with absolutes. Every time you create an absolute you create somewhere a situation where the application of the absolute is an absurdity. The topic is an example. If a fetus is not a person, but a baby is, what is the difference. And off we go on a logically absurd sleigh ride. There cannot be an absolute that differentiates these two things. Similarly, if viability becomes the issue, technology will push back the limits where we can bring a fertilized egg to life. Then we will have to save all kittens because now they can become life too. If a time machine becomes a reality we will have to go back in time and save every aborted fetus, every unfertilized ova that died in car crashes, every person who ever died and so on.
Absolutes are wonderful if you don't have the habit of thinking about the implications of ideas, but if you do, you are quickly lead into hell.
I feel that life begins at conception because I can imagine a potential human there. That makes every act of abortion an act of murder. But turned around, if you say that the zygote is sacred you enslave the body of the woman in which nothing but a freak of fate, the origin of sexual reproduction as a process and outgrowth of evolution, is the one to whom this applies. Does a woman have the right to determine if she wants to carry an unwanted child. Do others have the right to make her.
Life is sacred. Choice is sacred. Control over your own body is sacred. These absolutes are fundamental, but they also fundamentally conflict. Obviously the way to avoid all this is not to conceive an unwanted child. Another fundamental truth...
What people have to do, when faced with fundamentally challenging questions is to invent answers that satisfy, as best as possible. Some will seek one absolute over another. By introducing the notion of personal choice an element of egalitarianism is introduced. People can make their own individual compromises to these questions. It's a pragmatic way of navigating the absurdities of absolutes.
My personal view is that people who are unable to participate in a compromise over absolutes are fanatics, destructive of civilized society. They value their own opinion over the need to negotiate with others.
Personally, I cannot let go of the notion of the sanctity of life, but I draw a line at my own person. Recognizing that if I seek what satisfies me will imprison another, I have to make room for the other.
Some unpleasant thoughts: If life is not absolutely sanctified is there a slippery slope. Can we kill babies? Up to what age? Where is the line? Is it a line? There can be no doubt that the earlier an unwanted pregnancy that will be aborted is aborted the better for the ethical palate of an increasing number of people. If the decision is going to have to be a secular decision between unpleasant alternatives, the sooner it is made the better. Birth control is best, the morning after pill next, and so on. Clearly the less human the fetus the less imaginatively generated emotional identification will take place.
I would say that an aborted fetus that can live is a bit late to kill. To infer from that the notion that time will make all fetuses similarly viable is interesting and perhaps even possibly applicable. It would be something that civil people will have to take into reckoning.
What a secular society does not need is the agitation of those who know all the answers supplanting the consensus building process with preconceived faith derived religious law. The goal of such people is to gain control. They fear ambiguity because it reveals the bargain they made to exchange salvation for reason. The Taliban are among us. They are the people who know.
of all the reasons to be a liberal, this one (imo) is weakest. that story was interesting and enlightening, thanks pastordon.
Corn
Diamond Member
- Nov 12, 1999
- 6,389
- 29
- 91
Moonbeam, you suprise me.
It would seem that the "cure" for society's ills you've been parroting the past few years here is at odds with your view on abortion. Interesting.
.............but then again, you really never had any credibility to begin with, so you've lost nothing. Carry on.
It would seem that the "cure" for society's ills you've been parroting the past few years here is at odds with your view on abortion. Interesting.
.............but then again, you really never had any credibility to begin with, so you've lost nothing. Carry on.
Um, isn't that based solely on your post number? If I had 10,000 posts all pertaining only to 'pics!' or 'repost', I'd be an Elite Member too. It has nothing to do with the quality of your posts.
10,000 posts = lifer.
Elite is bestowed upon members who have contributed greatly or have quality posts.
BDawg, I appreciate your support and I'm also appreciative to have been called elite, but I don't think that in itself makes my opinion any better that Corn's. What I wish Corn would do is just say what he means specifically. You can feel the intended hostility in the use of a word like parrot instead of say espouse. What I'm left to wonder about is what 'cure' he is talking about.
I see no reason, Corn, why you can't just say what you think I have said, what you think I'm saying now, and what you perceive to be inconsistent. I say a lot of things, some of them exactly the opposite of what I believe to be true if I think it will show people something or cause them to reflect.
As a truth teller, Corn, you should have realized long ago, that if you were dealing with the genuine article, the very first thing you would have been called is incredible. I know very well that I'm incredible and maybe even because I never sought it.
I see no reason, Corn, why you can't just say what you think I have said, what you think I'm saying now, and what you perceive to be inconsistent. I say a lot of things, some of them exactly the opposite of what I believe to be true if I think it will show people something or cause them to reflect.
As a truth teller, Corn, you should have realized long ago, that if you were dealing with the genuine article, the very first thing you would have been called is incredible. I know very well that I'm incredible and maybe even because I never sought it.
Knock off the title thing. Knock it off! It doesn't matter who has what title. What should matter is what substance their arguments have. If you feel it's crappy, fine. But don't resort to who's got what title. When it comes to arguing logically, people from all walks of life can be the best orators and the rest can be the worst. Title never determines this. So, get real!
"BDawg, I appreciate your support and I'm also appreciative to have been called elite, but I don't think that in itself makes my opinion any better that Corn's. What I wish Corn would do is just say what he means specifically. You can feel the intended hostility in the use of a word like parrot instead of say espouse. What I'm left to wonder about is what 'cure' he is talking about."
Moonbeam, can I make out with you? :Q
Aah! All right, carry on. I refuse to fall into this trap of arguing incessantly.
"BDawg, I appreciate your support and I'm also appreciative to have been called elite, but I don't think that in itself makes my opinion any better that Corn's. What I wish Corn would do is just say what he means specifically. You can feel the intended hostility in the use of a word like parrot instead of say espouse. What I'm left to wonder about is what 'cure' he is talking about."
Moonbeam, can I make out with you? :Q
Aah! All right, carry on. I refuse to fall into this trap of arguing incessantly.
I say kill 'em all if they want it. Abortion and assisted suicide should be fully legal. You ultra conservative, right-wing, fascists should avoid keeping the country in your controlled, police-state timewarp.
datalink7
Lifer
- Jan 23, 2001
- 16,765
- 6
- 81
Yah! Let's legalize murder and rape while we are at it. Whooopeee! You are a facisit if you try to press your morals of anti-murder upon people
I know liberals who are against abortion. How about you think before opening your mouth and spouting your ignorance? Stop blaming "conservatives" and look at the god damn issue for a change.
This question brings up a totally different issue. In this case, we're talking about a being which has been viable for years, yet now may not be considered so. This is a different issue than abortion, where we're talking about a fetus, which has never been viable (at least in the first trimester). I see this as a vital difference between the two, and I feel that an analogy comparing them is invalid, as they are two totally different situations.
numark
I agree that this is a different issue than abortion, in that it is less clear. An abortion ends a life that, if left alone, would almost certainly have many useful years afterwards.
I think you nailed something very real here. The person who was "viable for many years" is someone that somebody knows; there is a face to go along with the person. The unborn are known much more abstractly, which is why we can speak so calmly about whether it is ok to kill them or not.
numark
I agree that this is a different issue than abortion, in that it is less clear. An abortion ends a life that, if left alone, would almost certainly have many useful years afterwards.
I think you nailed something very real here. The person who was "viable for many years" is someone that somebody knows; there is a face to go along with the person. The unborn are known much more abstractly, which is why we can speak so calmly about whether it is ok to kill them or not.
Corn
Diamond Member
- Nov 12, 1999
- 6,389
- 29
- 91
You know very well to that which I refer Moonie. Perhaps it's merely the realization that I'm correct that has hindered your ability to publicly admit it.
But I will give you this: surely abortion is not an act of love, neither for one's self nor for the develolping human on the chopping block.
I didn't realize that the relevance of one's opinion was weighted against their popularity at a message board infested by geeks and children. But now that I know what it is that you deem of import in determining "credibility", I'll give your furture "opinions" all the careful consideration they merit.
But I will give you this: surely abortion is not an act of love, neither for one's self nor for the develolping human on the chopping block.
I didn't realize that the relevance of one's opinion was weighted against their popularity at a message board infested by geeks and children. But now that I know what it is that you deem of import in determining "credibility", I'll give your furture "opinions" all the careful consideration they merit.
That's a very interesting point you make, and I agree totally with you on the point of the abstractness of the concept. I can definitely see your point-of-view on this issue.
As an aside, I'd like to comment on the actions of the rest of you in here. It seems that many of you are turning this thread into a flamefest, insulting each other's opinions and characters. Is that any way to have a discussion? I would respectfully ask that if you wish to continue flaming each other, do it somewhere other than this thread so the rest of us can discuss this issue. Thank you.
Well I can tell you, Corn, that I didn't have the slightest idea to that which you refer, but I assume from what little you give me that you refer to suggestion that we need to learn to love ourselves. Hehe, the irony. If people loved themselves, Corn, the only laws would be conventions to tell us what side of the street we agree to drive on, etc. There would be no rape, no unwanted pregnancies, no need for abortion. My whole point is that in dealing with a pluralistic society we have to take people where we find them, self hate and all. I am simply opposing an idealism that imagines everybody to be perfect and tries to hold them to that standard even when they fail. It is not up to the religiously convicted to dictate a narrow range of perfection in a world where everything else is left a complete mess. There is no self love in that either.
I liked this part:
"Perhaps it's merely the realization that I'm correct that has hindered your ability to publicly admit it."
I liked this part:
"Perhaps it's merely the realization that I'm correct that has hindered your ability to publicly admit it."
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter