It was pointed out by **flight ** that this would probally be taken wrong
quote:
Originally posted by flight
Oh, and Jagang, even though most unwanted pregnancies come from poor birth control you are probably going to get flamed for a crack like “The woman must still go thru the pregnancy, this will be the price for not watching you birth control better…”
I explained it to him as:
For this line I was speaking from the stance of a pro-lifer who thinks 90% of women are out being careless due to they can just have an abortion if something goes wrong.
and I’ll futher explain it to you as:
Sorry but my sarcasm didn’t come thru as I wished. Next time I’ll be sure to use [sarcasm] [/sarcasm] tags. Reread it with this in mind and see if it sounds better for you.
I wonder, does the fact of the existence of an organization like “Atheists For Life” signify anything other than a couple of guys and a website?
Would setting up a 'Daffodil Growers For Life" website suggest that Daffodil Growers, qua Daffodil Growers, were as significant an anti-choice group as, say, ‘Rabid Loonie Rightist Christians For Female Slavery’?
Boy. You’re just not willing to accept the possibility that atheists can oppose abortion, are you? Sheesh.
I suppose you’d view The Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League with the same extreme skepticism. Talk about automatically rejecting any evidence that doesn’t fit one’s preconceptions.
Moreover, what of Dr. Bernard Nathanson, one of the founders of NARAL and a vocal advocate of abortion? He turned pro-life and exposed many lies of the pro-choice camp – all when he was still an atheist. (He did convert to Catholicism eventually, but that was many years later.)
You STILL believe that pro-lifers (male and female) simply want to impose slavery on women? Sheesh. Most of the pro-choicers I know at least acknowledge that pro-lifers are genuinely motivated by a desire to save human lives.
Of course, it’s more convenient to assert that pro-lifers merely want to enslave women. As Bob Cos eloquently said, earlier in this thread,
Alright, I admit, I was a bit short and more than a bit myopic on my last post, apologies, i was in a bit of a rush… I’ll expound…
I do not believe that abortions should be illegal. They are a medical procedure, not a crime (though I will admit that late-term abortion ought not take place, except, that is when the life of the mother is at stake, I’ve actually seen one, and it’s pretty horrific). The decision to give birth is one that cannot be generally legislated, and if you try, people WILL find another way to terminate pregnancy. The push-down pop-up theory has proven itself time and time again in the fallacious drug war in this country.
Generally speaking, and from my own experience, right wing personalities, especially extreme ones, tend to believe in the eye-for-an-eye philosophy of the death penalty, yet from that same alleged standard of righteousness, speak out vehemently against abortion. Despite arguements to the contrary, they are indeed connected ideas, to discount life merely on the basis of that life defying the laws of man (which btw is distant from biblical philosophy, which many, if not most but definately not all, anti-choicers use as ammo against abortion), is just plain silly.
Yes, JT, you’re right, there is a difference between executing a habitual murderer and taking an innocent life. The difference is that the life of which you speak as innocent must be able to support itself. The habitual murderer has shown himself capable, despite his evil tendencies, of making his way in the world, the mass of cells clinging to a womans uterus and generally unable to exist outside of their host, have not. I do not call this an ‘innocent life’ I don’t automatically buy into the potential of this mass of cells becoming a life. I don’t what if, or second guess the decisions, abortion, in my opinon is natural selection. If the mother sees fit not to allow her child to live, there has to be a reason why, and even if that reason is fear, the selection has been made, and the choice is right. What if, just by chance, the urge to have an abortion is natures way of rooting out the murderers? The argument is made in the pro-choice lobby that it is a womans right to choose, so in effective agreement, I believe it IS indeed a matter of personal preference, and the morality issue is one that I have addressed above. Finally, and not to be vulgar, but abortions are different than twinkies because twinkies have no human DNA, despite that, someone who wants either one, should be allowed to have it.
Walloon, slavery and abortion ARE unrelated issues, and by the way, a cite, though it really isn’t necessary in this case, should be from a source that isn’t biased. JFTR, I don’t keep any slaves, don’t believe in it, never have.
Fundamentalists are everywhere, it really doesn’t matter who they quote, they’re equally dangerous
Goo said…
If I knew someone who honestly, truly believed that abortions were completely and utterly wrong and that it was murder, but adopted the attitude of “well, I just won’t have one, but anyone else can”, I’d think they were hypocritical morons .
Well Goo, that’s all fine and dandy, but when there are intersecting freedoms, such as abortion which is legal, and free speech, the default must be a boundary. If I am a woman, who has made the difficult decision to have an abortion, it is my right not to be assaulted, slandered and have my character maligned as I enter a clinic. You can speak out until your heart is content, but your rights end where mine begin, and this is the base problem I have with the anti-choice movement. As far as the butchering of 12 year old boys, I refer to my previous argument. 12 year old boys can survive outside of their mothers womb, 12 week old boys cannot, this, in my opinion, is the difference, even as radical as my opinion may seem, other than debates in this format, I don’t push my views on anyone else, I don’t stand outside of churches with pictures of downtrodden, drug addicted children and chant slogans FOR abortion, because frankly it’s none of my business.
Ok, maybe I didn’t mean we ought to use snipers and bombs to get the pro-choice message heard, as the anit-choicers have done in the past (and I know the radicals don’t speak for the majority, so there’s no need to call me on this one) but I for one don’t mind rolling around in a bit of homocidal revelry every now and again. It’s a form of escapism from the oppressive idealism of the far right.
Um, OK, so your point was that since it didn’t seem likely to you that the supporters of an abortion ban could actually implement this ban, this is not a pragmatic recommendation. And if the tide turns by virtue of a national discussion, then I’m sure you’ll conclude it has gained a pragmatic aspect by virtue of that circumstance, so I’m just as sure you’d likewise agree that debate and discussion are worthy activities, the current absence of pragmatism notwithstanding. This shift is not awfully hard to envision–only a new SC Justice or two and the tide could turn. Just IMO, of course, and I will concede that I cannot build an indisputable case for how such a ban would occur.
Anyway, I think I understand now and agree your point is indisputable. Not terribly helpful or illuminating, a long way to go to make a point I would have conceded had you made it in a sentence or two, but a nice little tautology you can be proud of–those recommendations that you believe have chance of being implemented are pragmatic from your perspective, those you don’t believe have a chance, aren’t. Gotcha. Thanks.
No, that’s a practical distinction. Do you feel there is a moral distinction, and if so, how would you define that distinction? There was a reason I asked you the previous question as well. Will you answer it?
JThunder has this exactly right. Argue “personhood” or rights or whatever if you’d like, but a fetus is both human and a being. What the hell is a fetus if not a human being? Stating otherwise is semantic silliness.
Bob Cos…I respect your belief, but would ask for an answer to the following, assuming the fetus is in the first six months of development and in normal health with no defects;
Can a fetus show pleasure, discomfort, sadness?
Can a fetus urinate and deficate?
Can a fetus stand up?
Can a fetus draw a breath?
Can a fetus support itself outside the womb if set on a table?
The answer to these questions is no. Morally, it may still be a potential human, (though I don’t necessarily believe that myself) for the sake of argument, we’ll say it is, that does not speak, in any way, shape, fashion or form to the legality of abortion.
Buttonjockey, would you object terribly to the addition of ‘Can a fetus think?’ to that list?
Also, who wants to make the claim that random person A is inherently obligated to support random person B even if A is responsible for B needing support?
Not really. I was talking about individual subjects, not large collections of people. When you have large collections of people, pragmatism takes over.
Of course I will. And when you demonstrate why a ban is more pragmatic than legal abortions in a national scope—like, say, Bryan and I have asked—then you might have something. But all I hear is that we should have a ban because I don’t like abortion.
I should hope not, I described it in my own post.
All it takes is some scribbles on paper for a legal ban to occur. What I’m asking for is how you would actually ban abortions. What measures will be put in place to ensure that people aren’t having abortions?
Or do you suppose it is for the best to charge a woman attempting to kill her baby in utero with a crime and then holding her in order to make her give birth, whereupon the child becomes an impliment of the state? This is not exactly a navel-gazing speculation. You want to ban the behavior. How will you get your ban to work? What is an acceptable number of abortions that you will be able to live with, and what measures will be necessary to get to that point?
Hardly. Your snotty tone notwithstanding, I will attempt to restate my point again.
I am one guy. I can’t make national changes, so I make judgments without such consideration. But if we talk about a national change, I think I had better discuss instead how my judgments will, should, or could be implimented, rather that reasons why I think the changes I am to make are good.
Ah. So one should also be allowed to kill newborn babies and severely disabled adults. After all, they can not support themselves. For that matter, neither can most children, before the age of adolescence.
Just for the record I am:
Pro-life
Agnostic
Believe religion has no place in determining our laws
Anti-death penalty
Almost always on the liberal side of issues. (I fail to see why this is a liberal/conservative issue though)
Bryan Ekers, if the fetus is a human being then killing it is murder. We do allow for exceptions to punishing murder as was mentioned earlier, and it is true we could create a law that says abortion is one of those circumstances, but why? We allow for self-defence, when killing the other is the only way to survive yourself. This is the situation Yeticus Rex describes and I cannot imagine abortion would ever be disallowed in such a case (his wife would have died without it and there was no chance of the child surviving).
If you approach it from this manner you have to determine an argument as to why it should be an exception to punishable murder. Currently, I believe, the only justifications are mental incompetence (does not apply, though if it became illegal to have an abortion I could see this being used as a defence considering the extreme emotional duress the woman would be under) and the immediate defence of yourself or those near you from murder or rape. Having to carry a child for nine months is by no meand easy, but neither is it as bad as what we as a society consider a legal justification for murder.
Goo has repeatedly started from the point you just reached but taken it from the other direction. Her beliefs, as I understand them, are that no one should be forced to help another, forced to carry a child they do not want. Phrased in the manner of my previous paragraph this means that the burden the fetus places on the mother would be justification enought to kill it.
To me this seems to be a very dangerous precedent. It states that when one person places a burden upon another and there is no other way to alleviate that burden, it is OK to kill them. I hope I exlplained myself a little better this time around Goo.
Oh, and several people haven stated that even if abortion is outlawed, women will still get them and they cannot be completely stopped.
Just because a law will sometimes be broken does not mean it should not exist. Murders happen all the time. They will continue to happen to matter how harsh we make the punishment. Does this mean we should make it legal? Absolutley not. Yes, there are difficult issues in making abortion illegal, such as pre and post natal care for the mother and ensuring a family for the child, but just because it may be difficult does not mean it should not be done.
Have you paid any attention at all to pro-life contentions? Pro-lifers don’t object to abortion out of mere dislike, the way some people dislike sushi or bittersweet chocolate. Pro-lifers oppose abortion because they believe it to be deeply and fundamentally wrong, just as the deliberate killing of innocents is considered by reasonable people to be wrong.
If all you hear is that pro-lifers simply don’t like abortion, then I can’t help but wonder what you’ve been listening to.
In fact, in the case of pregnancy, there IS a way to alleviate that burden. It’s called adoption. The mother’s burden will not completely disappear, but the major source of one’s hardship will be… and the law was never meant to guarantee complete freedom from personal difficulty.
“But I don’t want ANY hardship! I don’t want to be pregnant at all!” one might say. I don’t mean to minimize one’s distress, as an unwanted pregnancy can be a most difficult experience. However, it does not justify the ending of another human being’s life. I’ve spent the past ten years working with various charities on an unpaid basis, so as to make life better for women in such distress. Still, I acknowledge that one needs a better argument than the mere desire to avoid personal hardship.
Really? So does this mean that you’ll denounce any statistical claims that are provided by NARAL, Planned Parenthood or NOW? After all, these sources are adamantly pro-choice, which makes them decidedly biased. Even more so, in the case of Planned Parenthood, since they derive a major portion of their income from performing abortions.
Well, apparantly “we as a society” is just fine not considering abortion to be murder at all, let alone having to create legal exceptions for it. Had anti-abortion sentiments been strong enough among the majority, the U.S. would now have a constitutional amendment expressly forbidding the practice. A morality-based law, Prohibition, was rammed through once. Why not again?
There is a certain hierarchy of the pro-choice position, which I’ll summarized roughly as:
[ul][li]A fetus is not the equivalent of a human being, so if the human being carrying it (the woman) wants it terminated, it’s her choice.[/li][li]Even if it’s conceded that a fetus is the equivalent of a human being, the civil rights of the should woman take priority.[/li][li]Even if we’re skittish about aborting the human-equivalent fetus, we’re more skittish about the intrusive nature of anti-abortion laws. No-one here has yet described how such laws could be enforced, and vaguely-defined laws are by far the most skittish-worthy.[/li][/ul]
Given a trade-off between the rights of a fetus and the rights of a woman, I’ll choose to support the woman because I can’t see any good way to support the fetus without stomping all over the woman’s rights. If some wondrous future technology allowed a fetus to be safely removed from a woman who didn’t want it, allowing it to be gestated in an artificial womb, then the issue of balancing the rights of the fetus vs. those of the woman will become much trickier. Until such time, I want as much discretion as possible over my own body, and I’m perfectly content with others wanting the same.
Besides, since abortion is currently legal, the onus is not on me to justify legal exceptions to a potential ban, but on you to justify the ban in the first place.
So it’s not that you don’t like it, it’s that you really really really don’t like it.
Oh, that clears it up perfectly.
If a fetus is not the equivalent of a human being, I don’t see how it could be the equivalent of an innocent human being.
Again, you still don’t get it. This goes beyond mere dislike.
Do you believe that rape should be prohibited? What about child abuse? What about the torturing of homosexuals? Do you object because you believe these acts to be fundamentally wrong, or is it because you just don’t like them?
In which case, you’re arguing from an erroneous premise. I already cited medical authorities who adamantly attest that the fetus IS a human being. Not the mere equivalent of one, but an actual human being. Disagree if you wish, but the wealth of scientific evidence is on our side.