Look, I know it's been overdone - but abortion

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You reduce it to: A human is human. My head hurts from that one! Doesn't yours? .

Nope. I’m pretty much okay with defining humans as human. I start getting a little bit of a headache when people starting trying to nitpick the line between human and something not human so that they can justify killing something with a clear conscience.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

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

Friday, November 3, 2006 5:22 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"who said that she should be kept alive" BECAUSE SHE STILL HAD BRAIN FUNCTION.

They were using the the same criteria as Mr Schiavo, just wrong data. Once the data proved there was no brain function b/c there was no possibility of brain function because there was no BRAIN, they agreed and went away. They reached the same conclusion, based on the same data, and using the same criteria. There really was a consensus on what it means to be alive. And being alive means brain activity.

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

Friday, November 3, 2006 5:33 PM

CHRISMOORHEAD

Hmm, then I'm grossly ill-informed. I never heard anything about the crowd outside dissipating untill after she had already died. Maybe I was wrong about it, but I was not aware of any breakthrough recognition by fundamentalists about Schiavo's condition.

Maybe you could point me in the direction of an article or something?

[IMG]

Place my body on a ship and burn it on the sea,
Let my spirit rise, Valkiries carry me.
Take me to Valhalla where my brothers wait for me.
Fires burn into the sky, my spirit will never die.

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

Friday, November 3, 2006 5:34 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Finn, Finn, Finn ....

Do you really expect everyone to just accept your definition ? Are you going to do one of those - I define the English langauge around here and I get to say what words mean ! You know how far that goes, don'cha?

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

Friday, November 3, 2006 5:40 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

It was after the fact. After threats of political and religious retribution had been made, after her death, and after the autopsy. The threats, promised lawsuits, political action and protests all fizzled away. All the outrage was gone. Frist slunk away never to mention it again, as did the Bushes (Jeb and dubya - wow, what a picture those names make. Don't you just see poor white trash picking up road kill and throwing it in the back of the pickup on their way to the still? "hey Jeb, that's some 'coon we got there. hardly smells or nuthin'." "you betcha, dubya.") Plus a few other names I've forgotten - the preacher outside the clinic who was making all sorts of public appearance hay at the time. Whatever happened to him, what's-his-name?

Quote:
Originally posted by ChrisMoorhead:
Hmm, then I'm grossly ill-informed. I never heard anything about the crowd outside dissipating untill after she had already died. Maybe I was wrong about it, but I was not aware of any breakthrough recognition by fundamentalists about Schiavo's condition.

Maybe you could point me in the direction of an article or something?

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

Friday, November 3, 2006 5:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Finn, Finn, Finn ....

Do you really expect everyone to just accept your definition ? Are you going to do one of those - I define the English langauge around here and I get to say what words mean ! You know how far that goes, don'cha?

I don’t know what you’re talking about, and I’m not sure you do either. You and anyone else are welcome to accept my definition if you like. If not, then don’t. I don’t see anyone twisting your arm, so what’s your point?

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

Friday, November 3, 2006 5:47 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

The point is, you are saying "it's human because I say it is". I don't have a definition, and I'm not willing to explore either what I mean or what anyone else means, and I'm not going to discuss it, I'm just making a decree. If I say it's human, it is, and if I say it isn't, it isn't. Just 'cause I said so. End of discussion.

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

Friday, November 3, 2006 6:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The point is, you are saying "it's human because I say it is". I don't have a definition, and I'm not willing to explore either what I mean or what anyone else means, and I'm not going to discuss it, I'm just making a decree. If I say it's human, it is, and if I say it isn't, it isn't. Just 'cause I said so. End of discussion.

So basically, your problem with me is that I have an opinion. The topic is abortion not what you think about me having an opinion on the topic, which no one gives a shit about. If you have a contribution to the discussion, that's one thing, but all you can do is bitch because I have an opinion you don't agree with, I got better things to do.

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

Friday, November 3, 2006 6:27 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
If you can show me an example of a human fetus becoming something other then human when it is fully developed and complete then you’ve won.-Finn

Yes, I can show you fetuses that become something other than human when fully developed. The fetuses that become fully developed placentas, for example. They ARE "fully developed". They're not about to go any farther. They just didn't develop into a human. So, I win!-Signy

All human fetuses are human- Finn

You reduce it to: A human is human. -Signy

Nope. I’m pretty much okay with defining humans as human. I start getting a little bit of a headache when people starting trying to nitpick the line between human and something not human so that they can justify killing something with a clear conscience.- Finn

-------------------
So, what about flushing a placenta down the toilet? I wouldn't get bent out of shape- would you?

Yes????

No????

The problem is, you're confused. Among other things, you use the phrase fully developed and complete tho that's not what you really mean. Do you want me to TELL you what you mean? Because I DO know, even if you don't.

And what about my other two questions:

(1) ..to extend your example of medically necessary abortions being acceptable... does this mean that wars are acceptable only if they save more lives than they kill?

(2)How do you feel about the death penalty?

You seemed to have skated around them. But I haven't forgotten them and they're important because they demonstrate the depth and consistency of your commitment to human life. or lack of.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

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

Friday, November 3, 2006 6:40 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

No Finn,

"If you have a contribution to the discussion, that's one thing, but all you can do is bitch because I have an opinion you don't agree with"

I'm actually willing to discuss the topic. You've pretty much said you won't. You say you have an opinion, but you won't say what it is. You say some things are human, and they may be ova or sperm, or fertilized eggs, or embryos, but won't say what those things are, exactly. Or alternatively what you think are human characteristics so that the rest of us might deduce what you mean.

I still don't know what you mean; b/c all I get out of you is "I have an opinion about what's human". And that opinion is .... ?

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

Friday, November 3, 2006 6:48 PM

CHRISMOORHEAD

I really think the dissipation had more to do with the fact that the "battle" was over rather than the "war". I don't know that any of those people who were protesting it changed their minds afterwards so much as slinked on home to fight another day. But I suppose we'll just see if a similar case ever comes into the public eye again. I'm betting that it will.

[IMG]

Place my body on a ship and burn it on the sea,
Let my spirit rise, Valkiries carry me.
Take me to Valhalla where my brothers wait for me.
Fires burn into the sky, my spirit will never die.

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

Friday, November 3, 2006 7:47 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

CM - and I think the debate has been moved to the other end. You'll no longer see that kind of action about brain dead people.

Finn - you there?

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

Friday, November 3, 2006 9:21 PM

SOUPCATCHER

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
The leap I see you making, that I wouldn't make, is assuming that 12 year olds are not going to think about sex unless they are taught about contraception.
I’m not trying to make that leap. I’m not sure that I did, but if it came across that way, it wasn’t intended. There are always going to be a certain percentage of adolescent children who will get involved in sex and they will need to know and understand how to use conception to avoid doing anymore damage to their lives, because that alone can be enough to have a serious negative impact on their future. I’m not an expert in this area, but in my experience if contraception is where we are starting in our sex education, we’ve already lost. So abstinence should be the first and most heavily stressed thing that is taught in sex education, in my opinion.

Okay. I'm also not an expert on sex education. I went to a parochial school and the extent of our sex education was listening to a tape of Jim Dobson telling us that we weren't going to hell for masturbating. There's something really pathetic about that concept of sex education. Unsurprisingly, many of my classmates were very uncomfortable with their own bodies. The idea that the flesh was evil was bread and butter type thinking for the denomination I was raised in. It was basically abstinence-only sex education before they started calling it abstinence-only sex education. In other words, I've seen first hand the horrors that result from the, "We'll just put our fingers in our ears and pretend sex doesn't exist" school of sex education educators.

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

Saturday, November 4, 2006 4:42 AM

KANEMAN

FMF "There are too many children without homes and too many children living in substandard homes. We don't need to add to the misery."

Hey, even poor kids run, play, laugh, cry, love, etc... Some even grow up to be fathers and mothers themselves. Let's stay focused. Substandard houses? Clearly FMF, you must have a better argument for accepting murder?

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

Saturday, November 4, 2006 5:27 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

It seems that thinking makes Finn's head hurt.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

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

Saturday, November 4, 2006 6:37 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Kaneman. how 'bout this: Kids who grow up feeling unloved themselves grow up to be sociopaths.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

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

Saturday, November 4, 2006 6:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Okay. I'm also not an expert on sex education. I went to a parochial school and the extent of our sex education was listening to a tape of Jim Dobson telling us that we weren't going to hell for masturbating. There's something really pathetic about that concept of sex education. Unsurprisingly, many of my classmates were very uncomfortable with their own bodies. The idea that the flesh was evil was bread and butter type thinking for the denomination I was raised in. It was basically abstinence-only sex education before they started calling it abstinence-only sex education. In other words, I've seen first hand the horrors that result from the, "We'll just put our fingers in our ears and pretend sex doesn't exist" school of sex education educators.

Well, that’s one extreme. But it doesn’t seem like you turned out too bad. I mean, aside from becoming a liberal, it seems like you're pretty well balanced.

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

Saturday, November 4, 2006 8:09 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So Finn... any answers to my ???

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

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

Saturday, November 4, 2006 8:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I mean, aside from becoming a liberal, it seems like you're pretty well balanced.

And as we know, Finn (since you've told us here) Liberals are Baby murders who have to dehumanize unborn children in order to murder them with a clear conscience I guess that's the moderate side of the Argument, I'd hate to see the extreme side.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

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

Saturday, November 4, 2006 10:17 AM

HKCAVALIER

Murder.

I think sometimes all ethics really amount to is a big fat ego trip for the people who call themselves ethical. Better than you. Better than me. No, we're better than them! And here's why...bow down to my great ethical self, you are ethically lowly and bad.

Ethics is often simply perfectionism unevenly applied. You must be responsible and appropriate and conform to my idea of decency (pay no attention to the man behind the moral condemnation).

People, for some reason I've yet to fathom, enjoy punishing other people. It seems to work for them, satisfy some itch. Doesn't seem to matter to them that it's plain crazy. Certainly doesn't repair any damage done. Certainly doesn't bring any dead people back to life. Yeah, two wrongs make a right, that's the ticket! More dead people, that's what the world needs!

Murder. Hey, we're all fans of a show where our favorite character murders a good many people. Inneresting thing about Mal is, he don't go in for punishment, really. Not saying he don't get urges or that he don't get a bit of unhealthy satisfaction from settling things thataway. But the man don't kill to punish. He kills because the person in question represents a direct threat to the lives of the people he loves. He kills folks that pose a danger to himself and his crew. He murders people, and yet, we like him. Some of us admire him.

So here we are talking about what the State oughta be able to tell people they can and cannot do. No, no, no, we're talking about ethics; not what the State gets to do, but what people at large should do. Get your hammers out boys, it's time to tell others what they should do!

"Innocent life!" we cry, thinking to silence all opposition. We don't kill innocent life! Yeah, but we do, our representatives overseas have been doing it for several years now, very publicly, calling it legal and necessary, "clear and present danger" type stuff--totally legit. "Oh come now, my friend," you interject, "we do not target such unfortunates, they are merely a regretable but acceptable consequence of war; without killing innocents, we could not prevail!"

So anyway, I hope you'll pardon the creative writing here, but this conversation needs some serious shaking up. God, it's dreary!

Me, I had a girlfriend who had an abortion, very-very early-early stage abortion. It was a horrible experience for both of us (her in particular, though). Kinda spelled the beginning of the end of our romance (She's now married and has a beautiful little baby girl named Betty, I'm happy to report). Now, the two of us were/are spiritualists, psychics, see-ers of dead people, etc. So, for us there's no wiggle room, there was a soul incarnating inside her. She'd been in communication with this soul for years, the soul'd been trying to come in. There's every likelihood that Betty is that soul.

But metaphysics aside, what we're talking about here, is whether or not my ex should have seen jail time and maybe me as well. Or whether the folks over at Planned Parenthood should have been arrested on murder charges.

I don't feel that way. If I'd come home and found my girlfriend had shot her roommate dead for playing Ani DiFranco all day long, I think it would be a very different situation.

Don't you?

I mean, forget your perfectionism and all the logic and math that's got you're heart tied up in knots--don't you think murdering a 5 week old fetus and murdering a roommate are two very different things and require very different reactions from friends and lovers and the State?

When we think of a murderer, we think of a threat. Someone who solves one problem by murdering someone else, we reason, might murder again given the chance. We figure we better do something about the murderer, can't just let 'em run loose.

But my ex, ain't a threat to nobody. And wasn't. And she had her baby, after all. Might be ethical to contractually obligate a woman who's had an abortion to eventually make up for it by bringing a baby to term. Perhaps she has an obligation to that soul trying to get in on life on Earth. Certainly, my girlfriend felt that way.

So, to sum up. I'm not a moral perfectionist, I don't believe we can use math to logic out right from wrong. Sure, killing a fetus is killing a person. But I call it an extremely exceptional case. A woman who so murders her unborn child is not dangerous, she hasn't started down the slippery slope to serial killing. Cops don't keep lists of women who've had abortions to help solve the crimes they're bound to commit in the future.

And legally, I figure every human has jurisdiction over what goes on inside their bodies. If a person wishes to withhold life-support from a dependent being residing wholly within that person's body resulting in the dependent being's death, I figure they get to. If the term "special case" means anything, I think it applies here. Doesn't mean they'll be turning into O.J. Simpson over it. Doesn't make them a threat to the community. The death of the fetus is the great grand-mama of special cases. Women get to be special like that--always have, always will.

I think I can live with that.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

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

Saturday, November 4, 2006 10:47 AM

So let me get this straight, you’re okay with murder, at least to some degree, because #1, you believe the state shouldn’t tell you that you shouldn’t do it and #2, you believe that holding the opinion that murder is ethically wrong is a personal ego trip? Am I misunderstanding you?

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

Saturday, November 4, 2006 11:38 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So Finn- have you come up with answers to my questions?

Flash back just a few short posts. It went like this:

Quote:
Quote: If you can show me an example of a human fetus becoming something other then human when it is fully developed and complete then you’ve won.-Finn

Yes, I can show you fetuses that become something other than human when fully developed. The fetuses that become fully developed placentas, for example. They ARE "fully developed". They're not about to go any farther. They just didn't develop into a human. So, I win!-Signy

All human fetuses are human- Finn

You reduce it to: A human is human. -Signy

I’m pretty much okay with defining humans as human. I start getting a little bit of a headache when people starting trying to nitpick the line between human and something not human so that they can justify killing something with a clear conscience.- Finn

Which of course left me with a few questions, such as...

1) So, what about flushing a placenta down the toilet? I wouldn't get bent out of shape- would you?

Yes????

No????

In your mind you have an idea of what "human" means. An ideal. YOUR ideal. But what happens when reality wanders away from your ideal? HOW far away from your ideal will you allow the definition of "human" to stretch?

2) You use the phrase fully developed and complete tho that's not what you really mean. Do you want me to TELL you what you mean? It is a source of confusion for you. There is a phrase that can can substitute that will make veryhting clear.

3) To extend your example of medically necessary abortions being acceptable... that implies that you will spend a life to save a life. But what about war? Does this mean that wars are acceptable only if they save more lives than they kill?

4) And in a related fashion, how do you feel about the death penalty?

You seemed to have skated around the questions. But I haven't forgotten them and they're important because they demonstrate the depth and consistency of your commitment to human life.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

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

Saturday, November 4, 2006 11:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
So let me get this straight, you’re okay with murder, at least to some degree, because #1, you believe the state shouldn’t tell you that you shouldn’t do it and #2, you believe that holding the opinion that murder is ethically wrong is a personal ego trip? Am I misunderstanding you?

Certainly no worse than your assertion that Pro-Choice is baby murder and that people have to dehumanise the cell bundle in order to baby murder with a clean conscience.

Just keep calling anyone who disagrees with you a baby murdering Nazi, you're eloquently proving that you're capable of intelligent mature debate by doing that.

Hell the more you call people baby murders, the more you single yourself out as being on the moderate side of the debate, no what I'm saying.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

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

Saturday, November 4, 2006 12:26 PM

ROCKETJOCK

Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:

The most egregious example I can think of is when I hear social conservatives pledge to outlaw abortion, except in cases of rape, or incest. Why? If it's an innocent life, the method of its conception does not change that. A child born of rape or incest is just as innocent as a child born of love. Sin is not sexually transmitted, nor is it passed down from mother to child (maybe with Catholics).

Ah, but you're forgetting that in the case of rape or incest, the woman didn't enjoy herself. Therefore she can be freed of the punishment of pregnancy.

And let's face it--that's what the real agenda of the "pro-life" side is. Whether someone enjoyed F***ing. Dress it up in the morality of murder as they like, the true concern of the religious right is to make sure that people who enjoy sex in any but the most narrowly approved circumstances are ostracized and punished.

Perhaps I'll log back in later to debate the (very, very) separate issue of at what point in embryonic/fetal development the cell cluster should be considered legally human, but let's get real. Even if it could be proved tomorrow that the Hindus are right, and the soul doesn't enter the body until the first breath, the Evangelicals would still oppose abortion, because the important thing is to punish the sinners.

I say it's spinach, and I say the hell with it.

"She's tore up plenty. But she'll fly true." -- Zoë Washburn

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

Saturday, November 4, 2006 12:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You seemed to have skated around the questions. But I haven't forgotten them and they're important because they demonstrate the depth and consistency of your commitment to human life.

My commitment to human life, huh? So my answers to your questions are going to decide, in your mind, my “commitment to human life?” Why do you think I should defend my commitment to human life to you?

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

Saturday, November 4, 2006 12:35 PM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
HK. I am sorry for you and the ex. But glad she has a baby now.

And well said by the way.

----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

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

Saturday, November 4, 2006 3:44 PM

MAZAEN

To answer that question, people really have to ask when does life first begin. Some people believe life begins in the 3rd month. Some people aren't sure about it. I'm unsure about it therefore I don't agree with everday abortion. I think abortion should be only considered when the baby has an illness that would cause a lot of pain in his life.

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

Saturday, November 4, 2006 3:47 PM

EMPIREX

My mother had lupus and was a kidney transplant recipient. She had to take steroids every day to keep her lupus in remission and keep her kidney functioning. Her doctors had told her she was most likely steril from all of her medication.

When she found out she was pregnant with me, it was a complete shock. Her doctor strongly suggested that she have an abortion. A growing fetus would be right up against her transplant and the steroids she was on could cause horrible birth defects. I have to point out that my mother was a very devout Lutheran (she's since passed away) and was very opposed to the idea. However, she had a 12 year old daughter and husband at home and decided to put them first.
She reluctantly agreed to terminate the pregnancy. However, they soon discovered that she was already 7 months along and an abortion was not possible. I was born 2 months later and was perfectly healthy.
I think of this and realize that I was very lucky. But had my mother been only one or two months along... could I have faulted her for going through with it? Absolutely not!

I realize that most women who get abortions are probably young and unmarried and the children are most likely unwanted or the mother feels that she cannot provide for a child. But I don't feel that government should legislate moral issues. I, myself, could never have an abortion, but I would never try to tell another woman she could not have one. It is not for me to judge. That has to be left up to the Creator, who I believe, is loving, merciful, and compassionate.

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

Saturday, November 4, 2006 4:46 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
She'd been in communication with this soul for years, the soul'd been trying to come in. There's every likelihood that Betty is that soul.

I believe it's the case.

That was beautifully put, HK. Brought a tear to my eye, almost even. Your posts are by far my favourite on the whole internet, not just here.

Thank you.

Chrisisall

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

Saturday, November 4, 2006 7:39 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Women get to be special like that--always have, always will.

:Wiping tear: Damn, HK, you know how to write! I concur with Chrisisall--I always look forward to seeing what you have to say, even if I disagree. You should have your own blog.

(BTW, I apologize to RWED that I haven't written or posted in a while. Just moved twice, and then got into a car accident. Now changed computers, lost emails, basically disorganized. Also been very busy doing some political lobbying for an issue very important to me here in my state. I may post less and less here, but I always think of you guys and drop in to read from time to time, even when I can't post.)

My two cents, not that anyone here needs it. I believe abortion is murder. I think war is murder and capital punishment is murder. But hell, as HK pointed more eloquently, there are different types of murder and some can be understood and even pardoned.

I used to be rabidly pro-life. Then I became less rabid when someone I really cared about got an abortion, and I couldn't say I blamed her. The day I officially turned pro-choice was when I read a story about a Serbian muslim woman who was captured and raped several times a day for 6 months. She got pregnant. As a prisoner, she could not get an abortion. As soon as the baby came out, she murdered it. She was arrested and jailed for murder.

Now this was a case of undisputed murder of an innocent life. But I daresay there are very few women who would not sympathize with her. For me, I believed she did not deserve to be in jail. She wasn't going to go around murdering babies. She simply did not want to raise that one.

I have been reading a lot about innocent children being abused and killed the world over, with not so much a peep or care from most prolifers. Not that they are hardhearted, but that they don't even know about these kids. I believe the effort to enforce legislation would be better spent taking care of children who are already born--prevent THEM from being murdered first.

And lastly, although I believe abortion to be murder, I uncompromisingly believe in the right of other women to disagree with me.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

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

Saturday, November 4, 2006 10:00 PM

SOUPCATCHER

canttakesky,

Good to see you back! Sounds like you've been having to deal with a number of high stress events. I hope things are improving and that you weren't hurt in the car accident.

Finn,

Well, I'm a lot happier as a liberal than I was as a Limbaugh-listening ultra-conservative. So there's that

.

It sounds like you would support what is called abstinence-plus education. This is similar to comprehensive sex education and very different from abstinence-only education. I found a really good intro to the topic here: http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2005/shelbyknox/special_overview.html

Unfortunately, from my point of view, the US government only funds abstinence-only education. The amount of money spent is increasing each year (it started under Reagan, kind of stayed at the same level for a while, and then took a big jump under Clinton. Bush has taken it to another level).

Quote:
from http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2005/shelbyknox/special_overview.html
In subsequent years, federal funding for abstinence-only education has increased substantially. In 2005, $167 million was earmarked for abstinence-only education, up from $80 million in 2001. President George W. Bush's proposed 2006 budget includes $206 million for such programs. This is the only portion of the federal budget targeted towards sex education in public schools, meaning that to qualify for this supplemental money, schools must adopt a sex education program that meets the federal standards for abstinence education. Schools that choose comprehensive or abstinence-plus curricula must fund the programs out of their general budget, provided by local and state governments.

It's getting pretty bad out there. In Louisiana, for example, all public schools are abstinence-only education (or at least they were in 2002). Which means that no Louisiana public school students are learning about contraception. None. That should scare the shit out of all but the far right fringe.

I'd be much happier if we funded comprehensive or abstinence-plus sex education.

* edited to add on to penultimate paragraph.

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

Sunday, November 5, 2006 4:48 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
My commitment to human life, huh? So my answers to your questions are going to decide, in your mind, my “commitment to human life?” Why do you think I should defend my commitment to human life to you?

ummm... Because you seem to have an opnion about it and you put it out to a discussion board?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

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

Sunday, November 5, 2006 6:11 AM

FELLOWTRAVELER

Finn,

I have read through all the posts and you seem to be a pro-lifer. If that is the case, my goal is not to bash you (or any other pro-lifer) for your position. As covered in the "Evil" thread, it's all relative to me. The pro-life stance is as valid as the pro-choice stance.

It's the inconsistencies in most pro-lifer's positions that I have a problem with and that is what I was trying to point out in my above post.

You appear to argue pretty consistently that a fetus is human life. I could go through and pick sentences out of your posts, but I hope you will spare me that task. If I have misunderstood and misstate your beliefs, just forgive and correct me.

But, if in your mind, a fetus is a human life and has a right to live, how does a (potential) mother's health concerns change this? Does any health concern trump the right to life? Must the mother's life be in grave danger or would the most pedestrian of concerns be sufficient? If your answer is grave danger, how grave? Is a 5% chance of certain death enough? How about 51%? Must it be above 90%? Finally, do you think there is a reasonable chance of reaching a consensus on this, even within the pro-life community?

My point is that there is really only two positions on this issue. The "right to life" is either relative or it is absolute. You have an exception. It may be different than those of the explicitly pro-choice people, but it's still an exception. And just as the pro-choicer's exceptions are inadequate to you, your exception is inadequate to the people on your right.

It's all perspective and no view can be proven to be more valid or invalid than another. So, if every position is potentially invalid, how can we rightly force others to follow our possibly invalid beliefs? And if we do, why stop with abortion? This moral/religious conflict extends far beyond the abortion debate and it's a very slippery slope.

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

Sunday, November 5, 2006 6:32 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Sorry, I had to run off and start taking care of a population problem in our neighborhood- a feral cat problem. We have a mom cat who adopted us. Trouble is, she's BIG cat, a good mom, and a kitten-factory. This was the second litter of five on our yard. I managed to trap two of the kittens (Wings and Tabby) and had to take them to a spay/neuter clinic. Next time I hope to trap the remainder (Mom, Collar, and Fancy. Cloud seems not to have survived) for the same. Also rabies and flea treatment.

FINN... I'm not trying to make you "defend" your commitment to "human life", just to clarify what you mean. And I think in that process of clarification you'll find at least one gaping schism in your mental constructs and probably more than one.

I've read your posts in the past. As I recall- and I may be wrong- you're in favor of the death penalty. Even your signature (Those who want peace must be prepared to wage war) tells me that you, at least, are willing to kill in order to achieve a goal. But you will not permit women and their doctors (who may be men) to do the same.

I can think of all kinds of ways to parse this seeming contradiction and we can dance around terms like "innocent", "human", "deliberate", and "authority" but quite frankly I don't think that's where the schism is. From your posts, I perceive and entirely different reason WHY this seeming contradiction pops up and it is related to how you fundamentally look at the world. It shows up in pharses like fully developed and complete.

If you want to discuss it, fine. If not, then I would say you're frightened of possibly having your mind changed.

CANTTAKESKY
OMG, is there anything we can DO? A series of events like that would make a rubber room look kind of tempting!

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

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

Sunday, November 5, 2006 8:15 AM

FLF

Just wondering here, what if you could prove 100% that the woman who was planning to abort a child, would one day go on to invent a cure for cancer; however, if she had it - she wouldn't get a chance to complete her education and the cure wouldn't be found for many years costing perhaps millions of lives.
In this case, would it be acceptable for her to ahve an abortion?
Just wondering - and I'm not OBVIOUSLY not saying this is always the case - I'm just pondering on your stance if it was.

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

Sunday, November 5, 2006 9:05 AM

LATTELADY6

I think everyone should have the right to choose. But that being said, I also believe that one should use birth control! Abortion should never be used because one is too lazy to take a pill or doesn't want to use a condom. Yes, the man had a part in this too.

There are times when I believe it is necessary, or maybe it would be better to say allowed. Rape is one of those times.

We've also let our zeal to save lives move further along than our ideas of quality of life. Children are being born today that I believe God never meant to go to term because our doctors have the knowledge to keep a 24 week (the normal being 40) damaged premie alive. (not all 24 weekers are that bad, but ultra sound and other tests can give us a lot of info)

But when it all comes down to it, it is the choice of the people envolved, what they live with, and no elses, including the governments.

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
"Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it." - The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam

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

Sunday, November 5, 2006 9:44 AM

ROCKETJOCK

Okay, time for a little brain-stretching exercises here. Let's just consider religious implications here to begin with...

First, as to the question of at what point the soul enters the developing embryo/fetus:

As I mentioned above, Hindu theology states that the soul (prana) enters the body with the first breath (also prana). Therefore, one would assume that, from a Hindu standpoint, abortion would be a non-issue; the equivalent of scraping a car while it's still on the assembly line, long before anyone is sitting at the wheel.

Further, in any religious structure that incorporates belief in reincarnation (Buddhism, Hinduism, Wicca, etc.) it wouldn't matter whether the embryo had a soul or not-- if not, you've killed animal meat, if so, then it would simply be an interrupted journey in the soul's karma, and it would move on to its next incarnation. No harm, no foul.

Looking at things from a Judeo/Christian viewpoint:

The Old Testiment standard was that the soul entered at "The Quickening" -- the point at which an ear placed against the mother's belly could differentiate the fetal heartbeat from the mother's. (Somewhere between the fourth and fifth motnths--well after the first trimester.) The idea that the soul enters at conception is relatively new (less than 200 years old) and stems from a statement from a Roman Catholic Pope -- hardly an idea one would think binding on American Protestant Sects, especially considering their historical animosity towards "Papist" ideas.

But, even accepting the idea of "Conception as soul start" at face value, it should have no effect on United States law. "Soul" is not a legal or scientific concept, but a religious one.

The question thus becomes, "At what point in the development of the embryo/fetus does it become legally human?"

That's not as simple as it may sound. There may be several diffent answers. As a parallel, consider the idea of "age of consent".

If an adult (18+ years of age) has consensual sex with a minor under the age of consent (generally 16) it is considered statutory rape--

But--

If the minor's guardians have given consent, the adult and the minor can be legally married at ages ranging down to 14 or younger, depending on the state.

The same act, legal under one standard, proscribed under another.

So--a doctor aborting a first-trimester fetus in the womb could be considered legal, under Roe V. Wade, yet still be murder if a miscarriage resulted from an assault on the mother. It's a matter of intent and contract...

I'm signing off here, due to outside world necessity, without having concluded my points. Sorry. But I hope I've still given people food for thought...

"Prove you have a soul. Draw--Soul! Present--Soul!" -- H. Beam Piper

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

Sunday, November 5, 2006 1:05 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

CTS - I was wondering where you were ! (How are your little ones BTW?) If there's anyting we can do, let us know - OK?

Lots of interesting posts.

"Ah, but you're forgetting that in the case of rape or incest, the woman didn't enjoy herself. Therefore she can be freed of the punishment of pregnancy." I laughed out loud. This captures it perfectly.

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

Sunday, November 5, 2006 1:38 PM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
hoping the car accident was minor!

----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

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

Sunday, November 5, 2006 6:35 PM

DREAMTROVE

I really don't want to get into this argument, so I'm just going to lay it out nice and simple:

Killing, ending a life, by your own choice, of someone else, is wrong. It's wrong if you take a bag of kittens and hang it in a tree and shoot it full of holes.

This position:

Quote:
If you think it's wrong, don't have one.

Is not just pro-abortion, it's actually pro-murder, because by the same logical, it could be used against the anti-murder argument:

"Thou shalt not kill"
as in a response like:
"Oh yeah? Well, if you disapprove of killing, don't kill people, but the rest of us are going to go on killing, whether that's okay with you or not"

The "right to choose" argument is equally bad:

it's your right to choose whether or not to go into mcdonalds and kill 16 people with an AK47. We're not saying you have to, but that option should be open to you.

No. It shouldn't. Maybe it should be open to a doctor, who sometimes has to make the choice of who lives and who dies in situations where there is limited blood, or siamese twins being separated, or one organ donor and two needy recipients, difficult choices. But disturbing the natural order should not be our whim.

BTW, I'm just ranting, so I'm not going to get into it, but my position is faith based, so I don't think it's going to make for much of a political debate. for the record, my position of anti-death penalty is also faith based. I oppose the death penalty for saddam hussein, and for osama bin laden, and just as i oppose it for george w bush and charles manson.

If you argue the point with me I'm liable to tell you to stop eating fish.

:)

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

Sunday, November 5, 2006 6:41 PM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
Abortions will happen regardless. You can be pro choice or pro backstreet abortion that leaves most women that have them sterile or dead or abandoning the child after birth, because those are the real choices.

Citizen,

This is the best possible argument for your side, and congrats on making it. I think there are ways to settle this one, but it's about the only solid argument I've heard from the pro-choicers.

Quote:

I cut my finger earlier, how many miniture humans died there I wonder? A collection of Cells isn't a human, it has potential perhaps, but still not a Human.

This is one of the many losing arguments. The point is, without human medical intervention, a full human will come of a pregnancy, most likely, and will not come for your cut finger. There are no complete clonable cells from your blood, but that's aside from the point. Abortion is screwing with mother nature. It's a very Saturny position.

But I'm not going to have an argument on abortion, just wanted to point out the strong and weak argument here.

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

Sunday, November 5, 2006 6:51 PM

DREAMTROVE

Finn,

Sorry about the earlier troll post. Fight the good fight. Logic dictates a solution here, but the left arguments don't hold up. I sometimes wonder if there's not a more insidious goal in the allowing fo blanket abortions, whether that goal is profit or depopulation, but in any event, it's wrong to kill, with the possible exclusion of self defense. Allowing "killing for convenience" in any walk of life will lead to disaster.

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

Sunday, November 5, 2006 7:55 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Hey Rue, Signy, FMF, Soup,

Thanks for your concern. I am touched. Browncoats really are the best.

Nothing anyone can do. I just slid on a slippery hill into another car. Killed my favorite car. Had to find and buy another (used) vehicle, take it to the shop, etc. Ah, what a pain. Fortunately we weren't driving fast and no one was hurt, except for an injury on my tongue. I somehow bit it something fierce upon impact and needed 8 stitches--yeah, on the tongue. Had to blend and drink all my food through a straw for a week and a half. Not fun. BTW, never blend a hot dog and bun. Ewww.

My kids are all right. I think my son is out of the woods now, healthwise. Thanks for asking.

I do still have a lot going on here, so I probably won't be posting as much as before. But I do miss you guys and will pop in from time to time.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

------------------
"Little defeat big, when little is smart.
First with the head, then with the heart." -- The Power of One (movie)

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

Sunday, November 5, 2006 9:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
This is one of the many losing arguments. The point is, without human medical intervention, a full human will come of a pregnancy, most likely, and will not come for your cut finger. There are no complete clonable cells from your blood, but that's aside from the point. Abortion is screwing with mother nature. It's a very Saturny position.

This is one of the many losing arguments. The point is without putting on a condom a baby would have resulted from sex. Contraception is murder.

Just wanted to point out the weak arguments

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

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

Sunday, November 5, 2006 10:43 PM

AGENTROUKA

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
This is one of the many losing arguments. The point is without putting on a condom a baby would have resulted from sex. Contraception is murder.

Just wanted to point out the weak arguments

To quote the creepy: Why so glib?

Why is it so hard to accept that there is a difference between the sperm, egg and the result of an actual successful fertilization between sperm and egg?

Pregnancy is not the inevitable result of sex. It's a probable one, but not guaranteed. Fetilization occurs if a number of factors combine.

Otherwise it's just potential. Sperm stays sperm and egg stays egg and both rot away without outside interference. As nature intended. No murder about it.

But when those conditions are met and by chance egg and sperm do meet, you have a fertilized egg, zygote, embryo, fetus, baby. And without outside interference that one doesn't rot. It grows. That's also as nature intended.

How is there not a difference? How?

It's the right of the woman to interfere. Period. But interference is what it takes, and I don't understand what is supposed to be so damaging about aknowledging it as something significant, something that ends the life of a human being at an almost ridiculously early stage?

Be it just a blob of cells - which would be great, in terms of dealing with that act - but it's a blob of cells that by high probability is just one stage in a direct line from zero to person.
Unlike a scrape of epidermis or a bunch of sperm or eggs.

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

Monday, November 6, 2006 6:51 AM

REGARDING:
"As far as I'm concerned it's a woman's choice - and no-one has the right to take that away from her.

Any other opinions here? Can anyone suggest how I can convince my friend or shall I just give up?"

FLF;

Ask Malachi if he agrees with you about the Woman's Choice
http://supportbordercontrols.blogspot.com/2006/11/abortion-is-satonic-
totally-evil.html#links

cl

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

Monday, November 6, 2006 6:51 AM

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

Monday, November 6, 2006 6:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
To quote the creepy: Why so glib?

Why is it so hard to accept that there is a difference between the sperm, egg and the result of an actual successful fertilization between sperm and egg?

Pregnancy is not the inevitable result of sex. It's a probable one, but not guaranteed. Fetilization occurs if a number of factors combine.

Otherwise it's just potential. Sperm stays sperm and egg stays egg and both rot away without outside interference. As nature intended. No murder about it.

But when those conditions are met and by chance egg and sperm do meet, you have a fertilized egg, zygote, embryo, fetus, baby. And without outside interference that one doesn't rot. It grows. That's also as nature intended.

How is there not a difference? How?

It's the right of the woman to interfere. Period. But interference is what it takes, and I don't understand what is supposed to be so damaging about aknowledging it as something significant, something that ends the life of a human being at an almost ridiculously early stage?

Be it just a blob of cells - which would be great, in terms of dealing with that act - but it's a blob of cells that by high probability is just one stage in a direct line from zero to person.
Unlike a scrape of epidermis or a bunch of sperm or eggs.

As Rue has already shown even after fertilisation and barring any other intervention the fertilised egg may not produce a viable pregnancy. And as I've already said Human pregnancy is actually the most dangerous of the entire animal kingdom, and less likely to produce a living offspring, what I mean is that an egg is only a potential human, but so is an Embryo. The biggest linchpin in the Argument so far has been "it could be Human therefore it is Human", how is saying "an egg could be Human therefore it is Human" any different? If Finn can insinuate that someone is a baby killer because they abort some cells that may be a Human (which apparently means they are a Human) how is saying prevention of fertilisation is murder any different?

Lets assume that we know 100% that the Embryo will develop into a child, so we say aborting it is murder.

Lets also assume that we know, for certain that during sex these Sperm will Fertilise that egg and will produce an embryo that will produce a child. Why can't I say that preventing fertilisation is also murder based on the same reasoning?

How is a Condom natural? How? What about the morning after pill? That is to all intents and purposes an abortion that can be used within three days. How's that not murder if abortion is?

But on to the last part, no one has demonstrated that an Embryo IS Human, they've shown that it may potentially possibly be Human one day, but no one has made any case whatsoever that it IS. To go with an analogy, is Rubber bought by Dunlop a tyre? That's why I don't recognise a few cells as a distinct Human being, because they aren't, they maybe later on, but that doesn't mean they ARE, not as Finn would have us believe, because I'm a Baby murderer who wants to kill babies with a clean conscience.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

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

Monday, November 6, 2006 10:45 AM