Survivors of Abortions

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: TallGeese

Originally posted by: jahawkin
First of all, I'm not copping out by attributing these laws to republicans. Do you want to argue otherwise?? Sure, some dems may have voted for such laws, but really, who are the ones advancing this agenda??

If a Dem voted for such a law, then it stands to reason that by that vote, that person is, as you put it, "advancing the agenda."

In my opinion, yes, there should be consequence if someone causes injury or death to a pregnant woman. But these consequences are not contigent on the fetus being defined as a person. In the example you provide, you could pursue legal recourse because the person in the airport caused harm to the fetus in your wife's body - the same kind of legal recourse you could pursue if your wife broke her leg due to that persons actions.

You're talking about civil liability. I'm talking about criminal liability. Something along the lines of willful disregard for human life. Which IS contingent upon the fetus being defined as a person.

Anyone here care to tell me that my first-born isn't a person?
If no takers, then how about someone tell me at EXACTLY what point she became a person?
I'm interested, because my wife is right now pregnant with our second child, and at the same point when she was knocked down 3 years ago.
I'm seriously interested to know if some motherfvcker can decide to do whatever the hell they please to end my 2nd child's life and not be criminally liable for it. :|

BTW: If anyone cares to answer another question, which I posted earlier in this very thread, and which was never answered:

Do you think it is OK for a pregnant woman to take drugs/narcotics (and the illegality of the drugs themselves is not in question)

Anyone?

BTW2: And an easier one: Do you think it is OK for a pregnant woman to smoke or drink?

If your wife was hurt by that person at the airport, you could still pursue criminal charges against them. Even if a fetus has legal rights, in this case, had that person hurting your wife led to a miscarrage I don't think you could pursue willful disregard for human life charges.
Your first born is a person. She legally (and in my view, morally) became a person when she exited your wife's womb.
If someone whos is pregnant like your wife were to miscarry, would that person be criminally liable for a loss of life??

As for the political issue, come on, we all know who's responsible for advancing the pro-life agenda. That's all I'm pointing out.

To answer your second question, I don't think its right for a pregnant woman to smoke/drink/toot blow/inject smack while pregnant. (actually, isn't having a glass of wine a day sometime during pregnancy medically acceptible?) Anyways, if a woman is pregnant, they shouldn't be doing these things, but you can't do anything to prevent them if that's what they are going to do. Education is cleary the key here, and I think it has been effective, seeing as how not many women drink/smoke/drop X while pregnant.

 

[Moonbeam]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Not me and it's a woman?s choice not somebody else?s.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TallGeese, that was my answer to both your questions. Yes I think the fetus has rights and the reason a fetus can be aborted and a second party can be prosecuted for harming one is because it's the woman's choice to make, not somebody else. The fetus has a right to life as long as the woman wants it. I'll do this one more time. The fact that we are sexual animals is an accident of evolution. The fact that there are wom3en and men is a freak of nature. By chance 50% of the population can get pregnant and 50% at the moment cannot. It's 50 50 if you are a man or a woman. Two people have a baby. By chance only one of them has to carry that baby in their body at a huge expenditure and life time commitment under normal conditions. Such a burden does not fall on men and men are often at the next flower before the child is even born. Life is sacred. That is an absolute. Forcing a woman to have a child by rape, by law by any means that she does not agree to is absolutely wrong. How do you reconcile to incompatible absolutes that occur as a freak of fate that affects only half the population. First off, clearly the matter is for that half to figure out. Clearly a majority of that half can't commit the same wrong by forcing a minority to have a child they don't want. That leaves the choice up to the individual woman. Men forfeit their say by having sex since they are the 50% that does not face the commitment.

This is the solution I see to the paradox of absolutes. I said that personally I would chose life in the state that I find myself in. I would have a hard time bringing the child of a rapist into the world. I would prefer, in that case the morning after pill and never knowing. I have no doubt that many women regret aborting. The whole topic makes me sick. I spend a bit of time here on ATOT doing my little part to try to make people think which is the first requirement in preventing unwanted pregnancies. I have tried to lay out the distasteful realities of why the sanctity of life, although I believe in it leads to absurd situations where something has to give. I don't like it. I wish it could really be an absolute. I have tried to explain that the feeling that something is absolute arises from within, from the capacity to identify with that single cell and see a human like myself who should and would live if it could. I tried to show that the human mind projected onto a lump of cells, a piece of hamburger, changes that lump of cells into a person purely as an act of imagination and that I cannot escape that imagination even though, on a rational level we are talking about a lump of cells that has exactly the same level of consciousness and the same fear of being turned into a patty. In short, I hate arguing for abortion. It is the worst argument I can think of.

On the other hand, I see men who are pro live as pro patriarchy, pro control over women's bodies. I see them as emotionally immature, unwilling to take a back seat to women in decisions that affect their bodies. I find them backwards in all manner of thought and action. I find them dangerous, because they would force women back into death in the alleys if their ideas prevail. My opinions are based solely on pragmatic inevitabilities that arise out of paradox. The undertext of all this is, 'Who shall play God?'. The courts have already done so. They did so correctly in my opinion. The thing we have to fear more than all else at the moment, it seems to me, is that the fundamentalists and pro lifers of all ilk, will substitute a secular god with their dilutions of a religious god and force the rest of us to eat it. It is much more egalitarian that we force you to eat our god because we don't use capital letters and in your own personal lives you can do as you wish.

 

[ATLien247]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Not me and it's a woman?s choice not somebody else?s.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TallGeese, that was my answer to both your questions. Yes I think the fetus has rights and the reason a fetus can be aborted and a second party can be prosecuted for harming one is because it's the woman's choice to make, not somebody else. The fetus has a right to life as long as the woman wants it. I'll do this one more time. The fact that we are sexual animals is an accident of evolution. The fact that there are wom3en and men is a freak of nature. By chance 50% of the population can get pregnant and 50% at the moment cannot. It's 50 50 if you are a man or a woman. Two people have a baby. By chance only one of them has to carry that baby in their body at a huge expenditure and life time commitment under normal conditions. Such a burden does not fall on men and men are often at the next flower before the child is even born. Life is sacred. That is an absolute. Forcing a woman to have a child by rape, by law by any means that she does not agree to is absolutely wrong. How do you reconcile to incompatible absolutes that occur as a freak of fate that affects only half the population. First off, clearly the matter is for that half to figure out. Clearly a majority of that half can't commit the same wrong by forcing a minority to have a child they don't want. That leaves the choice up to the individual woman. Men forfeit their say by having sex since they are the 50% that does not face the commitment.

This is the solution I see to the paradox of absolutes. I said that personally I would chose life in the state that I find myself in. I would have a hard time bringing the child of a rapist into the world. I would prefer, in that case the morning after pill and never knowing. I have no doubt that many women regret aborting. The whole topic makes me sick. I spend a bit of time here on ATOT doing my little part to try to make people think which is the first requirement in preventing unwanted pregnancies. I have tried to lay out the distasteful realities of why the sanctity of life, although I believe in it leads to absurd situations where something has to give. I don't like it. I wish it could really be an absolute. I have tried to explain that the feeling that something is absolute arises from within, from the capacity to identify with that single cell and see a human like myself who should and would live if it could. I tried to show that the human mind projected onto a lump of cells, a piece of hamburger, changes that lump of cells into a person purely as an act of imagination and that I cannot escape that imagination even though, on a rational level we are talking about a lump of cells that has exactly the same level of consciousness and the same fear of being turned into a patty. In short, I hate arguing for abortion. It is the worst argument I can think of.

On the other hand, I see men who are pro live as pro patriarchy, pro control over women's bodies. I see them as emotionally immature, unwilling to take a back seat to women in decisions that affect their bodies. I find them backwards in all manner of thought and action. I find them dangerous, because they would force women back into death in the alleys if their ideas prevail. My opinions are based solely on pragmatic inevitabilities that arise out of paradox. The undertext of all this is, 'Who shall play God?'. The courts have already done so. They did so correctly in my opinion. The thing we have to fear more than all else at the moment, it seems to me, is that the fundamentalists and pro lifers of all ilk, will substitute a secular god with their dilutions of a religious god and force the rest of us to eat it. It is much more egalitarian that we force you to eat our god because we don't use capital letters and in your own personal lives you can do as you wish.

Well said (or written, as the case may be).

 

[Hammer]

I think the guy should have some say (it takes 2 to tango ), but ultimately its up to the girl. She's gonna end up doing what she wants.

 

[Tallgeese]

Originally posted by: Hammer
I think the guy should have some say (it takes 2 to tango

Which is exactly the point I came in on to the thread with.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: SagaLore



Just an observation! Deny it all you want. (and denial = ignorance!)

btw, sorry to have hurt your feelings!

Haha, do you honestly think a twit like you could hurt my feelings by a post on some message board? To make blanket statements about anything in our world is foolish, and a sign of immaturity.

Shhh.. be careful or he'll realize that when his mother said he was special she was just playing a cruel joke on him

 

[JellyBaby]

Possibly much to Moonbeam's chagrin he's quasi-close to the libertarian's point-of-view on abortion: abortion is awful but it's not the role of government to decide the issue for the mother.

 

[Moonbeam]

"It takes two to tango." How is that not the infintile male demanding he have control over the body os a woman? You have a say. You can say no to sex. It's very easy not to have to be in a situation where a woman can about your child. Say no to sex. If you say yes, you know the law and and knew you have no say. Don't cry about it after the fact. Come on you conservatives. Where's your sense of personal responsibility? If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

 

[Moonbeam]

Jelly, we already saw that Libertarians just play god by hiding behind the strength of their neighbors. They won't tip their hat and admit their vaunted individualism is a crock.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
luvly, you can make out with me any time, but let me brush first. I'm paranoid about having corn stuck to my teeth.

Owned

 

[JellyBaby]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Jelly, we already saw that Libertarians just play god by hiding behind the strength of their neighbors. They won't tip their hat and admit their vaunted individualism is a crock.

You're being too general I think. I did read some posts about your condemnation of libertarianism due to it's focus on the individual. I thought you were joking. We're all individuals here on earth first before we're part of any collective or system. Personal choice, individual liberty and responsibility is at the core of libertarian ideals. You have the freedom to chose whether or not you want to be a part of a system and that's proper. Libbies would ensure your power to do so endures.

We do of course need to operate under the rule of law and fit into a governmental and societal system. Libertarianism <> anarchy. You simply don't have the right to take from others as you might like. That's why the libbies aren't anarchists. Libbies simply believe in as few laws and regulations as possible to allow all of us our most important and I dare say sacred right: to chose. Which seques nicely into the topic of this thread: a woman's right to chose is paramount.

Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled mayhem...

 

[Tallgeese]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Yes I think the fetus has rights [snip for clarity] The fetus has a right to life as long as the woman wants it.

That is an unresolvable contradiction. It is impossible for a fetus (or anybody else) to have rights that depend upon the whim of another human being. That contradicts the very idea of individual "rights."

The fact that we are sexual animals is an accident of evolution. The fact that there are women and men is a freak of nature.

I disagree with you on the terminologies of "accident of evolution" and "freak of nature," but such disagreement is not germane to the argument at hand

Two people have a baby. By chance only one of them has to carry that baby in their body at a huge expenditure and life time commitment under normal conditions. Such a burden does not fall on men and men are often at the next flower before the child is even born.

Speak for yourself. I am not "at the next flower" as you say, and my next child has not yet been born. The attitude that men have no part at all in pregnancy IS part of the problem. The idea that men have no say with what happens also gives them an out to avoid any responsibility for their own actions. The fact that most men wouldn't give a crap anyway is horrible, and speaks volumes about their character.

Life is sacred. That is an absolute.

We agree on this point.

How do you reconcile to incompatible absolutes that occur as a freak of fate that affects only half the population. First off, clearly the matter is for that half to figure out. Clearly a majority of that half can't commit the same wrong by forcing a minority to have a child they don't want.

Now that's a shift. First you say men have no say since they never have to face the possibility of being pregnant. Now you say that women can't decide the issue either

Men forfeit their say by having sex since they are the 50% that does not face the commitment.

Even ignoring the contradictory shift I just pointed out....I still disagree. I think men do face a commitment, as I stated earlier. If a child is produced, the man is clearly on the hook for support. And I'm not reducing this to money issues, because that is the lowest denominator of involvement, as others have pointed out. My point is this: if men have no say in what occurs, then why are they responsible AT ALL if the result is a child?

This is the solution I see to the paradox of absolutes. I said that personally I would chose life in the state that I find myself in. I would have a hard time bringing the child of a rapist into the world. I would prefer, in that case the morning after pill and never knowing. I have no doubt that many women regret aborting. The whole topic makes me sick. I spend a bit of time here on ATOT doing my little part to try to make people think, which is the first requirement in preventing unwanted pregnancies.

Agree on this point as well. And I do understand where you stand on on the issue of abortion personally from this thread

I have tried to lay out the distasteful realities of why the sanctity of life, although I believe in it, leads to absurd situations where something has to give.

I don't think it is the sanctity of life which leads to absurdity. Rather, I think the de-valuing of life, coupled with a dearth of personal responsibility and a lack of respect for the realities of sex, is what leads to such "absurdity"

I don't like it. I wish it could really be an absolute. I have tried to explain that the feeling that something is absolute arises from within, from the capacity to identify with that single cell and see a human like myself who should and would live if it could.

This is curious, since to my mind, that capacity for empathy is more akin to the "emotion" you earlier claimed to be the sole province of liberals, and which you claimed conservative thinkers were bereft.

I tried to show that the human mind projected onto a lump of cells, a piece of hamburger, changes that lump of cells into a person purely as an act of imagination and that I cannot escape that imagination even though, on a rational level we are talking about a lump of cells that has exactly the same level of consciousness and the same fear of being turned into a patty.

So I guess I'm still curious to know at EXACTLY what point in the gestation period does an unborn child cease to be a "lump of cells?" Some folks seem to think that it is the instant the child exits the womb. Would it surprise you to know that a newborn does not relaize he/she is separate from the mother (hence, they still think they are in the womb) for an amazing amount of time after the birth? If it is a case of consciousness and self-awareness, then you're heading down a slippery slope. What about before the umbilical cord is cut? Is that severing act the moment of personhood?

In short, I hate arguing for abortion. It is the worst argument I can think of.

Earlier...you yourself mentioned people being backed into corners by their exaggerations/arguments. I can think of no better example of that than what you have just said.

On the other hand, I see men who are pro live as pro patriarchy, pro control over women's bodies. I see them as emotionally immature, unwilling to take a back seat to women in decisions that affect their bodies.

For me (the immature bastard I am, in your view) it is not about telling a woman what she can and can't do (least of all my wife, because as many folks can tell you, she wouldn't hestitate to kick my ass) when no one else is affected. But again, we get back to the question of whether an unborn child is a person or not.
At each turn, this issue is reduced to a question of body control.
Since when does anyone have absolute control over one's body?
The state tells people ALL the time what they can and can't do at certain times.
As in: driving while intoxicated, ingesting controlled substances.

Why these restrictions?
Simple...because even moreso than the injury or harm that could befall the person in question, is the injury or harm that person could cause SOMEONE ELSE.

So again....the question of WHEN is an unborn child considered a person?

 

[Moonbeam]

Jelly, we are all part of a society long before we have any concept of the individual self at all. Our whole personality structure and belief system, in the form of conditioned response has taken root long before we think for ourselves.

TallGeese, I see you want to torture me.

I think what you do is argue from your strengths. I have argued from my weaknesses, I think. Tell me then what you propose? Are we to outlaw abortion. If so what do we do with women who have unwanted pregnancies. We could charge them with murder and put them to death. We can let them die in allies. We can restrain them in a hospital till the baby is born. We could develop a police force that tests women daily to see if they are pregnant and assign an officer to watch over them day and night to see they have the child.

I think you are seeking answer where there are none. The situation simply calls for decisions not absolute answers. The irrational insistence on absolute answers creates an irresolvable paradox, one which you attempt to avoid by pursuing a single strand of a multidimensional dynamic. Should you be able to force your wife to have a baby that a mad scientist implanted in her by force to produce a new type of genetic monster, and so on...



The point of evolution is profoundly germane in my opinion. We are animals with the problems inherent in being animals. We reproduce sexually instead of budding, for example. If every 12 months everybody grew a sixth finger that became a person and the world population was hovering around 50 billion or so and the ecosystem was in danger of imminent collapse, would it be ok to amputate the fingers. You wish to argue the issue intellectually without reverence to fundamental origin of the problem in the purely random origin of our biology. We have a problem by accident. It isn't cosmic. It's a joke that got played on us.

The real question, I think, is do we wish to apply human intelligence to complex ethical questions, or do we wish to rely upon interpretations of some old book? The difference in approach accounts for the huge difference in point of view.

Life is sacred. What does that mean. For you it may be that God made it that way. For me it's that my heart made it that way. For the sake of love I cannot make you think like me.

 

[JellyBaby]

Jelly, we are all part of a society long before we have any concept of the individual self at all. Our whole personality structure and belief system, in the form of conditioned response has taken root long before we think for ourselves.

I agree with the first part but what's the connection with the libertarian political philosophy? For intsance, I haven't seen any libby say the individual is immune from the law, only that he's made less from too many of them.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Not me and it's a woman?s choice not somebody else?s.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TallGeese, that was my answer to both your questions. Yes I think the fetus has rights and the reason a fetus can be aborted and a second party can be prosecuted for harming one is because it's the woman's choice to make, not somebody else. The fetus has a right to life as long as the woman wants it.

The fetus has rights, but not when it comes to the woman carrying it? She has the right to deny that fetus the rights that the rest of the world must grant it? Do you understand how insane that sounds? A pregnant woman is given license to murder?

I'll do this one more time. The fact that we are sexual animals is an accident of evolution. The fact that there are wom3en and men is a freak of nature. By chance 50% of the population can get pregnant and 50% at the moment cannot. It's 50 50 if you are a man or a woman. Two people have a baby. By chance only one of them has to carry that baby in their body at a huge expenditure and life time commitment under normal conditions. Such a burden does not fall on men and men are often at the next flower before the child is even born. Life is sacred. That is an absolute. Forcing a woman to have a child by rape, by law by any means that she does not agree to is absolutely wrong. How do you reconcile to incompatible absolutes that occur as a freak of fate that affects only half the population. First off, clearly the matter is for that half to figure out. Clearly a majority of that half can't commit the same wrong by forcing a minority to have a child they don't want. That leaves the choice up to the individual woman. Men forfeit their say by having sex since they are the 50% that does not face the commitment.

Smoke screen. You said a whole lot of nothing right there.

This is the solution I see to the paradox of absolutes. I said that personally I would chose life in the state that I find myself in. I would have a hard time bringing the child of a rapist into the world. I would prefer, in that case the morning after pill and never knowing. I have no doubt that many women regret aborting. The whole topic makes me sick. I spend a bit of time here on ATOT doing my little part to try to make people think which is the first requirement in preventing unwanted pregnancies. I have tried to lay out the distasteful realities of why the sanctity of life, although I believe in it leads to absurd situations where something has to give. I don't like it. I wish it could really be an absolute.

First of all, most pro-lifers will give you abortion in the case of rape. Not because it's any less immoral than regular abortion, but simply because the conception was forced upon them as the result of a horrific criminal act. Second of all, it can be an absolute. Extend the sanctity of life to conception rather than some arbitrary point further along in human development.

I have tried to explain that the feeling that something is absolute arises from within, from the capacity to identify with that single cell and see a human like myself who should and would live if it could. I tried to show that the human mind projected onto a lump of cells, a piece of hamburger, changes that lump of cells into a person purely as an act of imagination and that I cannot escape that imagination even though, on a rational level we are talking about a lump of cells that has exactly the same level of consciousness and the same fear of being turned into a patty. In short, I hate arguing for abortion. It is the worst argument I can think of.

There is no denying that that "lump of cells" WILL become a human who will walk and talk and have consciousness and sense of self. That tells you that the fetus is a developing human. A nine month old in its mother's womb is no less sentient than a nine month and one day old baby outside its mothers womb. That "lump of cells" has DNA that makes it just as human, technically, as you. It's not as tall or expressive, but then again, neither is a two year old and we can't kill them if they prove a potential inconvenience.

On the other hand, I see men who are pro live as pro patriarchy, pro control over women's bodies.

A nice close-minded view.

I see them as emotionally immature, unwilling to take a back seat to women in decisions that affect their bodies. I find them backwards in all manner of thought and action. I find them dangerous, because they would force women back into death in the alleys if their ideas prevail. My opinions are based solely on pragmatic inevitabilities that arise out of paradox. The undertext of all this is, 'Who shall play God?'. The courts have already done so. They did so correctly in my opinion. The thing we have to fear more than all else at the moment, it seems to me, is that the fundamentalists and pro lifers of all ilk, will substitute a secular god with their dilutions of a religious god and force the rest of us to eat it. It is much more egalitarian that we force you to eat our god because we don't use capital letters and in your own personal lives you can do as you wish.

You've proven quite predictable, moonbeam. I said earler that I thought you took this position on abortion to make yourself appear enlightened and, therefore, more intelligent than you really are. This last statement is evidence supporting my assumption. In order to raise your sense of status in your own mind, you've created an image of the opposition that makes them seem like brutal cavemen. The reason you disagree with abortion is to look good in comparison to that self-created opposition. I don't know what has compelled you to this other than insecurity or low self-esteem. You'll never see this because you don't want to and because your ego will keep you from ever admitting it to yourself; that's the sad part.

Pro-lifers are the Germans railing against the persecution and murder of the Jews. That's why they're so fervent in their argument. You're arguing for women's rights which they already have. Women can do whatever they want to themselves. What you're actually arguing, whether you understand this or not, is that women need to ALSO have a right that nobody else in the world has and that's the right to end a human being's life. You've already admitted that the fetus has rights. Your fighting to give women the right to rob that fetus of its rights.

Finally you say "they would force women back into death in the alleys if their ideas prevail." Nope. They would force women and men to take accountability and responsibility for their decisions. Remember that men are often the ones asking for the abortion because they aren't ready or don't want the responsibility and are able to somehow coerce the woman into having the procedure. It would force, at the very worst, a woman to give a child up for adoption. They would force better education on sex. They would save women the anguish of regret.

 

[Moonbeam]

Hero quotes:

----------------------------
The fetus has rights, but not when it comes to the woman carrying it? She has the right to deny that fetus the rights that the rest of the world must grant it? Do you understand how insane that sounds? A pregnant woman is given license to murder?
---------------------------

You I understand how insane that sounds. It's just that it is somewhat less insane than your position.

---------------------------
Smoke screen. You said a whole lot of nothing right there.
--------------------

Nope, you just weren't able to comprehend what was said.

-------------------------------------
First of all, most pro-lifers will give you abortion in the case of rape. Not because it's any less immoral than regular abortion, but simply because the conception was forced upon them as the result of a horrific criminal act. Second of all, it can be an absolute. Extend the sanctity of life to conception rather than some arbitrary point further along in human development.
---------------------------------

Do you understand how insane that sounds. Are you telling me the fetus of a rape is less human than one that is not. Life is life. The fetus isn't guilty. You are extremely illogical. And conception is just as arbitrary as any other point. It's in your head.

----------------------------------
There is no denying that that "lump of cells" WILL become a human who will walk and talk and have consciousness and sense of self. That tells you that the fetus is a developing human. A nine month old in its mother's womb is no less sentient than a nine month and one day old baby outside its mothers womb. That "lump of cells" has DNA that makes it just as human, technically, as you. It's not as tall or expressive, but then again, neither is a two year old and we can't kill them if they prove a potential inconvenience.
--------------------------------------

So?

-------------------------------------
A nice close-minded view.
------------------------------

Not closed minded at all. It's right on the money. You just don't like the fact's it's true.

----------------------------
You've proven quite predictable, moonbeam. I said earlier that I thought you took this position on abortion to make yourself appear enlightened and, therefore, more intelligent than you really are. (I took the position I did to defend women against the American Taliban)This last statement is evidence supporting my assumption. (you are seeing things) In order to raise your sense of status in your own mind, you've created an image of the opposition that makes them seem like brutal cavemen. (Excellent analysis. This is exactly how these things go. You must note though the problem of projection. Those with bad feelings often hear cave man when they are described because they are seeing their own inferiority. The reason you disagree with abortion is to look good in comparison to that self-created opposition. (Here you go off the deep end in wishful thinking and fantasy. I stated clear and unambiguous reasons for my position) I don't know what has compelled you to this other than insecurity or low self-esteem. (Recognition of how dangerous it would be if the American Taliban fundamentalists get control) You'll never see this because you don't want to and because your ego will keep you from ever admitting it to yourself; that's the sad part. (I check for this on a very regular basis. I argued my weaknesses. I'd say I'm more solid in my sense of self worth than you are. Who knows, but I do know that you could be as delusional as you describe me as being. And if you look close, a 'nice closed minded view', an attack on me, fits you well too.

Pro-lifers are the Germans railing against the persecution and murder of the Jews. That's why they're so fervent in their argument. (fervent in their argument. I hate this argument) You're arguing for women's rights which they already have. Women can do whatever they want to themselves. What you're actually arguing, whether you understand this or not, is that women need to ALSO have a right that nobody else in the world has and that's the right to end a human being's life. You've already admitted that the fetus has rights. Your fighting to give women the right to rob that fetus of its rights. (Exactly, and you're arguing she should be a slave to an unwanted conception. You want to punish with accountability, responsibility.)

Finally you say "they would force women back into death in the alleys if their ideas prevail." Nope. They would force women and men to take accountability and responsibility for their decisions. (Riiiiiiiiight just like women weren't dying before the law was changed. Are you ignorant of history are just being an ass. Women will die if the law is changed. Perhaps you haven't the stomach to admit that. You will contribute to women dying by holding your opinion. Your opinion is worth more than life, just like mine. Remember that men are often the ones asking for the abortion because they aren't ready or don't want the responsibility and are able to somehow coerce the woman into having the procedure. It would force, at the very worst, a woman to give a child up for adoption. They would force better education on sex. They would save women the anguish of regret. (You like that word force, huh. You are as I described. Like I said, if you are so fond of this concept, devote your life to biochemistry and perfect a way that you can carry a fetus for the woman and persuade one that wants an abortion to let you carry it instead.)
-------------------------------

Just out of curiosity, what do you want to do about women who want an abortion? To save the child, what do you have planned for the woman?

 

[SagaLore]

Just out of curiosity, what do you want to do about women who want an abortion? To save the child, what do you have planned for the woman?

Adoption.

You can't do anything about what a person wants. You can try and council the lady but many would see that as brainwashing.

If a woman wants to have sex, they face the responsibility of consequences. If a woman wants to have an abortion, then they face another responsibility of consequences. Given that abortion would be illegal, then the consequences they face is different but still a choice they make. When you're playing with sex you're playing with the lives of yourself, your partner, and your offspring. That is why sex should be a life choice, not casual entertainment. Nothing is entertaining about stds, unwed mothers, or abortions.

I must emphasize that most abortions are the product of casual sex, not rape. I know rape victims. My wife is a rape victim. 1/2 of my female friends at my old high school were rape victims. They didn't get pregnant, they didn't have abortions. If they had gotten pregnant from their attacker, I strongly believe Abortion should be an option. A raped mother should not be forced to carry to term a mirror image of their attacker - that child is cursed from the moment of conception.

The few people I know who have had abortions, are not rape victims. They are women who sleep around. And they don't learn from their first abortion. They have at least a second. Now to them, it's casual birth control.

I asked my wife many of the questions in this discussion to get her take on this. There is another situation she added, what if the mother who wanted to have the child, purposely, had the fetus tested and found out it was going to be born with a debilitating disease. Like if the baby was half brain dead. She thinks the choice for abortion is okay in the circumstance. In extreme cases I agree. So my entire stance about abortion is not about being 100% against abortion. It's about those situations where the mother simply does not want to face the consequences of consented sex. It's about the mothers that had the choice before the pregnancy occured.

Moonbeam, by the way, I have very much enjoyed your most recent long and detailed posts. I see where you are coming from and I totally understand your position now. I might not agree but you have made every effort to think this issue through and I respect that. Unlike that Red guy - he's just nuts.

 

[Red Dawn]

Unlike that Red guy - he's just nuts

Jeez Saga, that's the nicest thing you've ever said to me. I'm touched (in the head)

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Unlike that Red guy - he's just nuts

Jeez Saga, that's the nicest thing you've ever said to me. I'm touched (in the head)

 

[Moonbeam]

When I talked about arguing from strengths, I refer to comments like "adoption". You skip over the 9 months prior to that. I want to know your plans for those 9 months, or is just outlawing abortion all you want. You don't even want a total ban. You also, I think, spoke of facts over emotions. How is calling a rape fetus cursed a rational, rather than an emotional statement. Are you saying that guilt is carried in the genes. I suggest you feel unpleasant about the thought of a rapist being able to force a woman to have his baby, but you don't seem to mind forcing a woman to have a baby of a man that maybe was only looking for a one night stand. How bout we just snuff both these low life fetuses? I think you're on as slippery a slope as me. Clearly the lines you draw are as arbitrary as the ones I have. My question, therefore, is what do you have against the ignorant and irresponsible, the naive, inexperienced or uneducated. Women have been having unwelcome and situationally inappropriate pregnancies forever. Only a huge governmental effort by some form of totalitarian entity, could undertake to remake society in such a way that children could be raised in cr&egrave;che away from their ignorant and worthless parents and given a massive indoctrination and military style schooling, or alternatively enough love, that they could grow up free of the socializing that leads to the emotional and spiritual poverty that in turn leads to bad decisions about sex. In the mean time, why punish accidents (or errors in judgment by the least well off among us?)

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
When I talked about arguing from strengths, I refer to comments like "adoption". You skip over the 9 months prior to that. I want to know your plans for those 9 months, or is just outlawing abortion all you want. You don't even want a total ban.

I don't have any plans for the 9 months. It's not my responsibilty. It's hers. That might sound cruel but it's not more cruel than abortion. When she carries to term, she loses 9 months of her life. If she aborts, she loses possibly 80 years of somebody elses's life. There isn't an easy way out of all consequences...

You also, I think, spoke of facts over emotions. How is calling a rape fetus cursed a rational, rather than an emotional statement. Are you saying that guilt is carried in the genes.

It is an emotional statement - but it has a lot of fact to it as well. I think guilt is indeed carried in the genes. You picked that up from me pretty fast. :Q That rapist now lives on in the gene pool. I believe personality tendencies are carried on genetically. But that's not the main curse. The mother, having had to experience the rape, a non consented force and abuse, has to bare the pregnancy for 9 months. Every thought she has is disdain for that child. Every feeling of shame is projected onto that baby. And then when born... her first thoughts are most likely hate. That is how the child is cursed. Guilt, and shame...

Speaking of the gene pool... I did mention that I think a rapist should have a testicle removed per incident - and I was being serious.

I suggest you feel unpleasant about the thought of a rapist being able to force a woman to have his baby, but you don't seem to mind forcing a woman to have a baby of a man that maybe was only looking for a one night stand.

The #1 purpose of sex is for procreation. This is where "it takes two to tango" applies. That woman, at the one night stand, consented the man to put his penis in her and by contract allow his sperm to enter her uterous. Sure, there are birth retardents but that is a risk, not an absolute. The lesson here is to prevent one night stands, maybe you should wait until marriage to have sex. I know you probably don't like the sound of that but that then makes unwanted pregnancies absolutely impossible (minus the rape victims).

How bout we just snuff both these low life fetuses?

Well you have a point. BUT we can make the choices that help prevent the one night stands. We can't make choices to prevent the rapes. In one case a mother has a responsibility to face consequences of a decision she made - in the other, she did not make the decision. That's where I draw the line. I don't think babies should be aborted because they are an inconvenience after the fact. People will adopt. You can speed down the highway all you want, it's risky 'cause you can get hurt or get caught, well sometimes you might get caught. You pay the fine. You don't shoot the cop and pretend it never happened. But if a cop pulls you over for no reason, and hands you a fake ticket out of his own power, then you fight the ticket. Don't pay the fine. It wasn't your fault. My goodness what a horrible analogy but I hope it at least makes sense.

I think you're on as slippery a slope as me.

All of life is a slippery slope. I just make an effort to be on the right side of the slope. Maybe someday all of us can stand at the peak of the slope and see everything for what it really is.

Clearly the lines you draw are as arbitrary as the ones I have. My question, therefore, is what do you have against the ignorant and irresponsible, the naive, inexperienced or uneducated. Women have been having unwelcome and situationally inappropriate pregnancies forever.

I have nothing against them. They will remain as such until they are held responsible, are shown, are looked out for, and educated. We can't make scapegoats for everything. It weakens us as a society, as individuals. If you do, next thing you know people start suing for spilling hot coffee on their laps or for getting fat by eating fast food. Thank goodness that hasn't happened yet. People start radically passing the buck. You have to ask yourself - in the long run, will abortions prevent these types of people to lift themselves out of this? Does it actually fix anything? My feelings to those questions is that legalized abortion promotes the riskiness that needs abortion as an option - the result is a loop that creates more abortions with the same results.

Would be nice if all the abortion clinics put themselves out of business after a few generations but I doubt that is going to happen. We're going to need more abortion clinics, not less.

Only a huge governmental effort by some form of totalitarian entity, could undertake to remake society in such a way that children could be raised in cr&egrave;che away from their ignorant and worthless parents and given a massive indoctrination and military style schooling, or alternatively enough love, that they could grow up free of the socializing that leads to the emotional and spiritual poverty that in turn leads to bad decisions about sex. In the mean time, why punish accidents (or errors in judgment by the least well off among us?)

:Q

I don't see why teaching kids in high school that asbstinence is good until marriage is a bad thing. It's not about religion anymore. It's about health, finance, emotional maturity. Yes there will always be kids having sex. But when you promote abstinence, and educate on safe sex without promoting the sex itself, the ratio becomes really low. I would have to admit we're in society now that almost can't reverse itself because of the media and internet and such. But let's stop adding all these scapegoats... let people face their actions and we at least can reach an equillibrium.

Having a baby to full term, from a one night stand, is not a "punishment". Yes it's an accident. It's a consequence. It's the result of a choice. The only punishment that happens is when a baby is terminated. The baby is getting punished because a couple decided to get jiggy with it. Now it seems we do agree on a few things but where we disagree is here. You don't think the baby is a person. And the only way for you to change your mind is to actually get pregnant, and within the first 3 weeks rub your belly and say hi. But I don't see that happening anytime soon. But you already stated you would never terminate a pregnancy - I know what you're saying, you think it's a choice local to the barer of the circumstance. But I can't agree with that only because I define life at conception - which means a termination would mean killing.

I know you're going to come back with "but if you think it's killing then how's that different with a rape victim" - well I'm ahead of you on that and my answer is - I don't think it's different. If a rape victim aborts, she is still killing a baby. But I see that as much as necessary and justified as killing people in a war.

 

[imported_Papi]

I think women should be able to do whatever the hell they want to their bodies. They deserve that right. I'm not like the Nazi Germans. You think a baby still in its mother's womb does not deserve any rights. You ARE like the Nazi Germans.

Either way, you can't prove that inception isn't when life starts and I can't prove it is. You make the assumption that leads to the most convenient answer and by so doing risk becoming a metaphoric Nazi in the next great genocide. I make the assumption that it is a life, because, unless somebody kills it, it will become a full grown person. Should abortion be made illegal again, a few irresponsible women will have to take acountability for their actions, but when has that been a bad thing?

America is not a land of total freedom. I'm not free to shoot you. I'm not free to walk into your house and take something. We have laws that restrict freedom for the sake of morality and justice.

Frankly, you have no argument. All your replies have been pathetic smoke screens.

whoa! hold the phone.

Maybe the guy she slept with should have kept his dick in his pants then she wouldn't have to take acountability for her actions. See it goes both ways.



Edit- friggen quoting button

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: yayo

I think women should be able to do whatever the hell they want to their bodies. They deserve that right. I'm not like the Nazi Germans. You think a baby still in its mother's womb does not deserve any rights. You ARE like the Nazi Germans.

Either way, you can't prove that inception isn't when life starts and I can't prove it is. You make the assumption that leads to the most convenient answer and by so doing risk becoming a metaphoric Nazi in the next great genocide. I make the assumption that it is a life, because, unless somebody kills it, it will become a full grown person. Should abortion be made illegal again, a few irresponsible women will have to take acountability for their actions, but when has that been a bad thing?

America is not a land of total freedom. I'm not free to shoot you. I'm not free to walk into your house and take something. We have laws that restrict freedom for the sake of morality and justice.

Frankly, you have no argument. All your replies have been pathetic smoke screens.

whoa! hold the phone.

Maybe the guy she slept with should have kept his dick in his pants then she wouldn't have to take acountability for her actions. See it goes both ways.



Edit- friggen quoting button

He can do whatever he wants with his friggin dick. But, until she opens her legs there's not going to be any procreation going on.

However, I should have added that many men are the ones requesting the abortion for the same reason the women are...because it's going to pose an inconvenience for them.

BTW, moonbeam, I understood everything you were saying, even if it sounded rediculous. It just had no relevence to the argument and sounded more like the preface to a manifesto.

 

[Moonbeam]

Hero quote:

BTW, moonbeam, I understood everything you were saying, even if it sounded rediculous. It just had no relevence to the argument and sounded more like the preface to a manifesto.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Well that doesn't make sense. If you understood then you'd see the relevance, so I'll try again:

I'll do this one more time. The fact that we are sexual animals is an accident of evolution. The fact that there are wom3en and men is a freak of nature. By chance 50% of the population can get pregnant and 50% at the moment cannot. It's 50 50 if you are a man or a woman. Two people have a baby. By chance only one of them has to carry that baby in their body at a huge expenditure and life time commitment under normal conditions. Such a burden does not fall on men and men are often at the next flower before the child is even born. Life is sacred. That is an absolute. Forcing a woman to have a child by rape, by law by any means that she does not agree to is absolutely wrong. How do you reconcile to incompatible absolutes that occur as a freak of fate that affects only half the population. First off, clearly the matter is for that half to figure out. Clearly a majority of that half can't commit the same wrong by forcing a minority to have a child they don't want. That leaves the choice up to the individual woman. Men forfeit their say by having sex since they are the 50% that does not face the commitment.

What does this have to do with abortion. We need, in a secular society, to decide questions on the best available logical data.

Scientifically, we know that life evolved. These are some of the facts of that evolution.

Inorganic inanimate molecules formed with the ability to replicate themselves. Replication wasn't perfect. The better able a molecule is to replicate the more likely it will. This is evolution. It lead to beings that reproduce by sex. It might have been three way sex, or ten way sex or no sex by budding, but by chance it was two party sex. The sex partners also by accident one day discovered that they were self-aware. Wow, this is great, awesome. A sense of the sacred became possible for calcium hydrogen nitrogen carbon etc. Wow. Earth air fire and water got up and walked and said it was good. But there was trouble in paradise. People by accident didn't get pregnant volitionally because sex evolved before volition so people get pregnant when they copulate with men. The desire to copulate is profoundly powerful. It's a lot of fun. Maybe you know. Now look what a mess evolution has left us with. We want to have sex more than just about anything in the world and it causes babies. No problem, just terminate the pregnancy and party on. "OH NO YOU DON'T", said a voice from the sky. THAT'S EVIL. Really? Evil?

You must be kidden me, Jack. Having sex shore ain't evil. It's fun. What's the problem about rearranging a 2 billion year special ordering of dead chemicals. No problemo. BUT BUT... But what? BUT THAT PARTICULAR ORDERING IS ALIVE. Sure it's alive, by accident. What's the big deal. BUT IT SAYS IN THIS BOOK, AND I CAN SEE IN MY MIND..... Riiiiiiiiiiight, it says in a book and you project your own sense of the importance of your life on a bunch of unconscious cells that are just a freak of fate. Riiight, and we're supposed to make decisions that include your lunacy? BUT THE SACREDNESS OF LIFE, I CAN FEEL IT.... Good, apply it rigorously and in all cases where it doesn't infringe on a woman's also sacred right not to be forced to complete a process designed to replicate life autonomously and without conscious input at a time when such choice was billions of years down the road. You cannot make people slaves to the facts of their evolution because you have the fantasy that life is sacred. Idealism that creates a real hell for the conscious at the expense of a imagined hell of a mindless death is Nazi Germany personified. You wish to force people to undergo a responsibility regime that you as a male will never have to face. What justice can a judge dispense who himself has immunity to the same justice.

Men who wish to control women's reproductive rights are evil. They value the selfishness of clinging to a false notion of the sanctity of life at the expense of violation of the real sanctity of life. They refuse to grow up.