That does it...we're all fucked

Great Debates
101

I understand your moral dilemma and do not think that it has anything to do with power. Nor do I think that pro-lifers are nutty-nutty fruitcakes. I will concede that abortion violates your morals and mores.

I will argue out of a pragmatic stance alone. I have said that an abortion certainly kills a potential life and one that looks damn human.

A call to pro-abortionists! Let’s stop trying to make a 2nd trimester fetus seem like a little tumor or a walnut. It has hands and feet and looks like a small, small child. It is gross, it is barbaric seeming.

But it is the outcome that we must focus on. it is the cycle of poverty and teen mothers. You want to help the poor? Give them control over their reproduction.

If you don’t want to do this…well, then shut up about welfare, medicare, rising health costs and food stamps.

The poor don’t always understand that pregnancy is about a sperm and an ovum. And if you would like to challenge me on this, I have medical papers from my wife that will set the matter straight.

Sorry for the agression in the last few sentences. I have personally seen too, too many teen moms wher I knew that their kids were headed for disaster. I am passionate about this.

102

Mr.Z, I’m curious how this compassion for those caught in the throes of poverty doesn’t extend to unborn life? I ask this without discussing the “potentiality” of unborn life, since in prior posts you’ve indicated that even infanticide (in some instances) could be justified in the name of permitting women to choose their own destinies, avoid economic trauma, etc. I’m genuinely interested, so don’t read this as a flame (I find your honesty regarding the “humanity” of fetuses refreshing, at least).

What is the logic that says to you that the outcome of unwanted pregnancies is so dire to women that our compassion dictates we ought to kill someone else rather than have them endure it? Seems an inconsistency, but perhaps I misunderstand…

103

I didn’t read it as a flame even without you disclainer.

on the one hand you have a life, a woman, with experience, family, ties to others…a future potential.

On the othe hand, you have a life without ties, without the rudementary feelings, without an understanding of the world.

I take the potential, the ties.

The reason that the grown person may be in the throes of poverty is because of a history of generations of early and unwanted births.

I hire them, my wife treats them, and we all pay for them, these unwanted births. They, the unwanted, tax society, and mostly tax those too poor, or too ill-educated to control their own reproduction.

IT is for the benefit of society that abortion exists.

104

Certainly not for the benefit of that society of entities who were aborted. Your distinction between the mother and child seems specious–doesn’t the child have a “future potential” as well? Seems rather circular to me to indicate the importance of “ties” as justification for killing someone prior to giving him the opportunity to establish those ties. I’m not sure what someone’s level of understanding, his rudimentary feelings, has to do with his or her right not to be killed, other than at least the person tends not to put up too much of a stink over the proceedings.

But I guess that’s the crux of most of these debates for me: if I concede that it’s OK for “others” (outside entities such as mothers, Mr.Z, “society,” whatever) to decide when certain people’s lives are justifiable and certain ones are not, why can’t some day I be placed at risk (if the criteria change)? If economics, for example, can be used as justification in this instance, why can’t some drastically different economic circumstance lead to an even wider net into which the innocent will fall.

If the right of an innocent not to be killed is as close to an absolute right as exists (I assert this, I realize you don’t), then there is no economic or societal justification for it, regardless of the validity of the economic or societal trauma that may result (unless that trauma involves the death of other innocents). All the other “benefits” of abortion are not persuasive for me simply because they’re not relevant, not in the most important regard.

105

The slippery slope argument holds no merit here.

It s pragmatism. We can argue, we educated males, over the rarified moral issues involved in abortion. MY wife has seen many, many girls in jail for whom this argument is just silly. They are 14, pregnant, and addicted to meth. THeir children will be wards of the state, born addicted and will most likely end up like their mothers.

In the abortion clinic where she works, she sees many hispanic women. In their society, they have no rights over their reproduction. They come from 1000 miles away on a pretense to avoid an unwanted birth.

Trust me, these women do NOT want to have an abortion. Many feel that they will go to hell fo having one. But it is so important to them that they are willing to suffer the consequences. No one strolls cavalierly into the clinic and coldly goes through the procedure.

I wonder, my anti-abortion ( 3rd trimester or otherwise) friends. Do you want to see minority women succeed? If so you must support their right to reproductive freedom because it is the single most important factor in their liberation and success.

I wont argue that it is not killing a life. I wont argue that it violates the rights of a potential life. I will argue that it is necesary fo society – And I am a christian, remember.

106

I just thought of one more thing that maight elucidate my position:

When I weight the potention of the aborted child, I weigh it against teh suffeing in our poor communities. Which is more important, that child, or the cycle of poverty that keeps so many of our citizens mired in poverty, drug additction and ignorance. I see abortion as a way t help them out of this.

Government’s role is to remove barriers to success.

107

I just can’t work through your logic in my mind (which may be my shortcoming; I’ll have to think on it).

To state, yes, we’re killing someone in abortion, but our justification is that it will significantly improve another person’s social/economic/whatever circumstances seems to be a syllogism that collpases on itself. I can think of no bigger bummer in the quality-of-life department than being killed, so I just can’t balance this out in the way you’re suggesting. No matter how expeditious a solution abortion may be for a given ill, it still seems a greater ill to me.

I’m sure this won’t sway you. I do appreciate the clarification, though.

108

Yes, abortion should be allowed in cases of rape. But I fail to see how that is relevant to this discussion. Unless, of course, the woman didn’t remember she was raped for 38 weeks…???

109

Hi Mr. Z,

I do enjoy discussions with you. Level heads and differences of opinion make for spirited discussion.

We both see the problems at hand and have different ideas of how to solve them. I, for one, know that I don’t have all of the answers. But as someone that has no heirs and will never have “blood-line” heirs the abortion issue, particularly late term, is a definite hot button with me. My college girlfriend, (later my first wife), had an abortion while we dated. Had she not, I would now have a 22/23 year old son/daughter. After our divorce, I didn’t remarry until I was no longer young enough to want to raise children. In so many ways my anti-abortion position, particularly late-term abortion, is rooted in having flushed my only offspring down the toilet.

Your position attempts to make the world better for the people that are already in it. Mine attempts to include more people in the world with at least a minimal quality of life. Both are Christian positions that I trust fates us to the same eternity.

I wish there were a good compromise on this one. But I don’t see either of us changing our minds.

They’re about to drop the SDMB for upgrading. I’ll wrap up for now and resume later.

110

It’s relevant because, it’s hypocritical to protest abortion except in cases of rape. And yet many people who oppose late-term abortion will say that it’s ok in cases of rape.

**

I think that Mr. Z’s postiion and mine is that these people will not have a minimal quality of life. What will most likely happen is a life of poverty, crime, drugs, ending up in prison, sometimes executed by the same state that refused to let the mother abort a hopeless life.

111

What’s prevented you from adopting? Why couldn’t you adopt one of those babies who needs more attention and care than a perfectly healthy child, such as one with severe retardation, or a prenatal addiction, or some other condition? Why not adopt a baby of a different ethnic origin than yours born here in the States? (I’m assuming, of course, you live here in the States.)

I’m truly sorry for what you percieve as a loss. But has the thought ever occurred to you that your girlfriend/ex-wife honestly thought she wasn’t prepared to rear a child yet? Or was that not something you believed to be an important consideration? If you had both wanted children and the time was right, then you could have considered conception or adoption. But to take a stance on abortion just because you feel you lost your only chance at being a father is complete nonsense. There are plenty of infants and children out there that would love to have the opportunity you feel that ‘child’ was denied.

112

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by SouthernStyle *
**Hi Mr. Z

**

This * should *be the one OP where I get into real fights with you all. But, noooo! everybody is nice to me for being way out left on this issue. GOD! no wonder you all are lefties. it is easier!

But really, I enjoy fleshing out this issue (no abortion pun intended) with some rational human beings. No matter what our differences, I have solidified some of my views here, and changed others. Thanks to all for your rationale.
We both see the problems at hand and have different ideas of how to solve them.

I think I can calrify my views with a description of my philosophy:

Any good thing, be it freedom of speach, religion or th eright to bear arms will adversely affect some individuals while still being for the greater good of society. The Berlin Wall comming down may have been a good thing in general while it also may have fallen on some people’s feet crushing them ( the feet, that is.)

Things can be bad for a few and still be great for the many.

113

Olentzero - FWIW, the abortion was with my knowledge and consent. Neither of us were ready to start raising a family. Hell, we had only been dating a couple of months and didn’t really know that we’d ever get married. But after the abortion, I’d felt that I really did something wrong. And those feelings have never gone away.

I’m now old enough that I don’t wish to raise children. Mine by biology or adoption doesn’t matter. The “replacement”, if you will, is that my wife and I support several agencies that help raise troubled, abandoned, or orphaned teens. Probably not as much as we should, but we do help.

Mr. Z - Sorry that I’ve helped deny you a good argument. But call me leftist one more time and we can start drawing our weapons! :wink:

114

Far be it from me, SouthernStyle, to belittle or denigrate the honest emotions you felt after you and your partner made that decision. And I say that with the utmost sincerity. I have never said, nor will I say, that the decision to have an abortion is an easy one, nor will it have long-lasting emotional consequences.

I do take issue, however, with what I perceive as your desire to prevent women from being able to make that same decision in the future. The specific point at hand is, as I understand, third-term abortions, to which you are opposed. My point, and this is the reason I cited those numbers earlier (and not just percentages, but hard numbers) is that third-term abortions are more or less marginal to the case of abortions as a whole. Abortion opponents focus on this issue because it is so rare and thus easily made a contentious issue. But as I said before, they use it as a stepping stone to attack abortions in general.

It may be the case that you are opposed solely to third-term abortions. Unfortunately you would be in a tiny minority among abortion opponents.

115

I definitely oppose all abortion. But for this thread I’ve tried to argue simply on the pros/cons of late term abortion.

Your statement that the anti-abortion crowd wants to limit, restrict, and/or prohibit late term abortions as a means to get their foot in the door toward restricting other forms of abortion seems quite true. Just as it seems quite true that pro-abortion forces refuse to allow restrictions on late term abortion (even though polls suggest strong support for such) for fear that it will lead to restrictions on other forms of abortion.

The pro-lifers are asking for limits on something that most people find objectionable and hope to grow it. Pro-abortioners are fighting against restrictions on something that is generally agreed to be reprehensible for fear the restriction will be grown.

116

Wow. I’ve never seen such a level headed debate on abortion. Amazing. Here we have everyone admiting what they believe and want without any of that goddamnned stupid rhetoric. SouthernStyle wants to eliminate abortion and admits that third-term abortions are simply a wedge to do that. Pro-abortion people admit that it is a sickening procedure but, we can’t let it be banned for that very reason. What’s next, us all getting together for a tea party at MR.Z’s house?

117

**

Indeed, and all of this can be backed up with citations from both sides of the issue.

However, just because “polls suggest strong support” for anything does not make it right in both the moral sense, nor in the legislative sense when it comes to the Constitutional Republic that we live in.

In this case, I would argue that the polls would come to much different results if it was worded, “Are you in favor of making a woman bear a child to term if doctors said there was a high percentage that the child and mother would die,” or something similar.

**

Well, this is where I think you slightly misrepresent a few things.

To get the nit-pick out of the way, I don’t know anyone who is “Pro-Abortion.” I do know a lot of people who are “Pro-Choice.” While this may seem like a quibble, I don’t think anyone called you or your side “Anti-Choice,” and mutual respect would be appreciated.

Now, you talk about how “reprehensible” this procedure is.

Yes, it is, but again this misses the point. Amputation of your legs is “reprehensible.” Having your throat carved open and having to speak through a hole in your neck is “reprehensible.” I could name tons of medical proceedures which would qualify as “repreheisible” as we are using the term here.

But when these are not questioned, because they are not done frivilously. They are drastic measures taken for drastic conditions.

Well, that is exactly what so-called partial-birth abortions are as well. And the alternative is the same as the alternative to not amputating cancer-ridden limbs: People will die.

And that is reprehensible.

Yer pal,
Satan

I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Two months, three weeks, six days, 17 hours, 12 minutes and 9 seconds.
3548 cigarettes not smoked, saving $443.58.
Life saved: 1 week, 5 days, 7 hours, 40 minutes.

118

I gotta stand with you on this one, oldscratch. This is one thread I admit it’s been a pleasure to read. It certainly seems like we all agree to disagree but we’re not getting heated up about it. I guess if we just keep thinking about what we’re trying to say before we say it, we might keep this one out of the Pit for a long time to come.

119

We’re so civil it’s almost nauseating. Actually, it is nauseating. And since I’ve a stomach ulcer it resembles the aftermath of what we’re debating.

Sorry… couldn’t resist :wink:
A couple of counter-counter-[repeat as necessar]-points.

Don’t connect the dots between my arguing against late term abortion and my being anti-abortion. Even though the organized anti-abortion lobby uses this technique, I’m not using one to leverage the other. While I find all abortion objectionable, I view late term abortion as something between murder and homicide. I honestly don’t know how to judge first and second trimester abortion – or how to draw a line in the sand and say “this is OK” and “this is NOT”.

The term “pro-choice” is one that has always bothered me and one that I’ve always avoided. It’s marketing at its finest to take something and wrap it up as something less offensive. One cannot be “pro-choice” without having support for both sides of the argument. “Pro-choicers” in the SDMB are just as likely to get into severe name calling, profanity, and other objectionable behavior in their defense of a woman’s right to choose abortion as the “pro-lifers” are in their defense of the unborn’s right to live.

Here’s a pretty good analogy. A 14 year old girl has decided that she wants to become sexually active and decides to talk with her parents about it. Her parents have several options, but to leave the choice solely in the hands of their daughter (pro-choice) requires that the parents endorse the child’s wishes to become sexually active or they just don’t care.

It works the same way in the abortion argument. The powers behind the “pro-choice” argument are anything but. They fight tooth and nail to prevent anything that will so much as delay an abortion. Distributing literature that describes alternatives to abortion is out of the question. Parental notification when minor girls seek abortion is out of the question.

I believe that the term “pro-choice” is just window dressing for a much larger political agenda.

120

OK. This debate is definetly leaving the realms of lte-term abortion. But, I’m willing to follow it.

First, I agree with you that many on the Pro-Choice side are willing to resort to the same tactics as the Pro-Life crowd. I can just as easily point out that Pro-Life is also clever marketing. They don’t take the mothers life into consideration or what will happen to the child’s life after it’s born. But, I’ll stay away from cheap shots like that.

The pro-choice side is very much that. The believe in a young woman’s right to choose regardless of what her parents want. Is that good or bad? I feel that because of the stigma attached to abortion, the fear that a child will feel telling her parents, it’s a good thing. Other’s don’t. But, the pro-choicers believe it should be her choice, not someone else’s. This is quite consistent.

Saying that pro-choicer’s don’t want alternatives to abortion talked about is pretty misleading. As has been stated, most people are uneasy with abortion. Every pro-choicer I know what’s every alternative explored before abortion is nesecary. That’s why most pro-choicers are pro-sex education, and pro-birth control distribution. We find it hypocritical that many, though not all, pro-lifers talk about abstinence, but when that doesn’t work, refuse to allow abortion. If they were out there spending time educating people and handing out birth control to those who need it, they would see far fewer abortions. Also, the reason the pro-choice forces argeue against delays is the same reason they argue against late-term limits. It’s a wedge issue.