NationStates Jolt Archive

Not touching this one with a 20 foot pole.

as a side note, the recourse to past preferences or possible future preferences won't work when it comes to, for example, humans born with brain damage of certain types. they have none, had none, and won't have any later either. we still must act in and protect their interests, and the nature of that interest is just what is good for them..
Acephalous infants HAVE no "interests". Nothing whatsoever is either good or bad for them. We must act in the interests of the other people involved.

<snip>

Actually, I'm not stuck with you. No rule says I must respond to you. When you've replied to me in a civil way, I've responded in kind. When it stops being civil, I stop debating you. Anyone who doubts this can go back over the last few pages and see for themselves. In terms of pissing match, I refuse to continue it. In fact, I see little value in going beyond this post unless something truly worthwhile comes up.
I don't want you to do anything you don't want to do. That is why I have been encouraging you to ignore me since you don't like me. To help you, I will draft all further responses as comments upon your posts for public review, rather than as direct responses to you that might seem to expect an answer. You can answer my arguments if you like, but don't blame me if you don't like my way of speaking.

:rolleyes: UMMM I VOTED THAT IT SHOULD BE LEGAL BUT THATS ONLY BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO DECIDE ITS THEIR BODY AND THER ARE THE ONES THAT HAVE TO LIVE WITH THEIR CHOICES SO ITS NOT UP TO US BUT I AM SO PRO LIFE BUT THATS WHAT I BELIEVE THERE ARE ALOT OF OTHER WAYS AROUND IT A WHOLE LOT OF WAYS PEOPLE JUST THINK THAT ABORTION IS THE EASY WAY OUT WELL ITS NOT THERE ARE FAMILIES THAT CANT HAVE CHILDREN OR THAT DON'T WANT TO HAVE THEM THEY WOULD JUST RATHER ADOPT SO I DONT THINK IT SHOULD BE DONE EVEN IF THEY WERE YOUNG AND THEY DID GET RAPED I STILL THINK ITS WRONG AND THATS COMMING FROM A 15 YEAR OLD GIRL YEA I WOULD HAVE THE BABY AND RAISE IT ON MY OWN IF NEED BE SO YEA IT WOULD BE MAD HARD BUT IM PRO LIFE SO WHAT CAN I SAY AND BY THE WAY IM 1 OF THOSE PEOPLE THAT WILL ADOPT INSTEAD OF HAVE CHILDREN OF HER OWN BUT ITS NOT LIKE ANYONE IS GOING TO LISTEN TO A 15 YEAR OLD GIRL ANYWAY BUT THERES MY THOUGHTS SO THANKS I GUESS

CUZ IT'S SO COOL TO POST RUNON SENTENCES IN ALL CAPS CUZ UM YEAH SO :upyours::sniper:

CUZ IT'S SO COOL TO POST RUNON SENTENCES IN ALL CAPS CUZ UM YEAH SO :upyours::sniper:

You forgot:

:gundge::mp5:

I'm going to find out tomorrow if I'm pregnant. If so, I'm within the threshhold to get a medical abortion (pills rather than surgery), and I shall do so on Wednesday. It bothers me in the way any medical procedure would, but no more than that.
Here's hoping you are not pregnant.

As for the rest... yeah, um, like Bottle said. :)

I know what you're dealing with. I also cannot take contraceptive pills due to migraine syndrome and blood pressure/stroke/clotting risks. And I also once experienced condom failure, many years ago, before the "morning after" pill was developed. That was not a happy time.

Good luck.

Hey Murav,I've been doin' some thinking and I believe I may be more understanding of abortion in some circumstances.The rape and teen pregnancy topics are kinda confusing:(.I guess I'll need your opinion on something.Ok here it is,what would you think if a teen girl was a big floozy and she got pregnant wouldn't that be her fault?I need your feminine insight on this.

Hey Murav,I've been doin' some thinking and I believe I may be more understanding of abortion in some circumstances.The rape and teen pregnancy topics are kinda confusing:(.I guess I'll need your opinion on something.Ok here it is,what would you think if a teen girl was a big floozy and she got pregnant wouldn't that be her fault?I need your feminine insight on this.

pregnancy isnt a punishment. you dont purnish a "bad" girl with a baby.

so if a teen girl finds herself pregnant, it doesnt really matter how she got that way. its still her choice as to whether or not to carry it to term. its her body, her right to choose medical treatment, her future. no one else should be able to either force her to have the baby or to abort it. (its just as bad when a girl's parents try to force her to have an abortion "for her own good")

Acephalous infants HAVE no "interests". Nothing whatsoever is either good or bad for them. We must act in the interests of the other people involved.

acephalous infants have problems big enough that what is good or bad for them has more to do with how we deal with getting rid of them. but supposing nobody directly involved cared too much, would it be ok to give the remains to someone that really wanted to, for example, feed them through a sausage grinder?

As for the rest... yeah, um, like Bottle said. :)

Good luck.

Usually Bottle has good things to say, but sometimes its so aggressive and predjudice that I can't respect it.
I hope that this woman (sorry, forgot your name) isn't pregnant. But I also hope that she decides against an abortion.

Hey Murav,I've been doin' some thinking and I believe I may be more understanding of abortion in some circumstances.The rape and teen pregnancy topics are kinda confusing:(.I guess I'll need your opinion on something.Ok here it is,what would you think if a teen girl was a big floozy and she got pregnant wouldn't that be her fault?I need your feminine insight on this.

Why don't you answer your own question.

You seem to be toying with the idea that a girl who is a "big floozy" shouldn't be allowed to choose to have an abortion, but a girl who isn't a floozy should be allowed to make that choice.

So, where are you going to draw the line?

If a girl has had four partners, does that qualify her for "floozy" status, or does it take five? What if she's only had sex with each guy one time, compared to a girl who's had constant crazy monkey sex with a single partner?

Basically, how much sex is a girl allowed to have before you take her rights away?

What about STD treatment? Should a "floozy" be forced to go without treatment if she gets an STD?

Usually Bottle has good things to say, but sometimes its so aggressive and predjudice that I can't respect it.

Here's another bit of aggression for you:


I hope that this woman (sorry, forgot your name) isn't pregnant. But I also hope that she decides against an abortion.
"Forgot your name"??

Really?

You can't be bothered to CLICK BACK ONE PAGE and learn a woman's name before you presume to pass judgment on her reproductive decisions?

This is making me wonder if the anti-choicers are deliberately thwarting any attempt to satirize them by being such monstrous self-parodies.

You can't be bothered to CLICK BACK ONE PAGE and learn a woman's name before you presume to pass judgment on her reproductive decisions?

This is making me wonder if the anti-choicers are deliberately thwarting any attempt to satirize them by being such monstrous self-parodies.Click back one page? Isn't Sin's current name visible in Muravyet's post?

Click back one page? Isn't Sin's current name visible in Muravyet's post?
I was being generous, assuming that he needed to find the original post to confirm who was speaking at the beginning of this thread of discussion.

But yes. We are dealing with somebody who feels qualified to decide that abortion is the wrong choice for a woman whose name he can't be bothered to read off the screen in front of him.

He's clearing making a RESPONSIBLE choice, though, right? And that woman, whatshername, is totally being IRRESPONSIBLE.

You can't be bothered to CLICK BACK ONE PAGE and learn a woman's name before you presume to pass judgment on her reproductive decisions?

Of course not. The unnamed and possibly nonexisting embryo is after all a far more important person.

"Forgot your name"??

Really?

You can't be bothered to CLICK BACK ONE PAGE and learn a woman's name before you presume to pass judgment on her reproductive decisions?

This is making me wonder if the anti-choicers are deliberately thwarting any attempt to satirize them by being such monstrous self-parodies.

I forgot her screen name. But this forum is ultimately anonymous. I'm pretty sure everyone knew who I was talking about. And I didn't say anything rude, I apologised for forgetting her screen name: Neesika. I have since checked it. I never called her 'whatshername' like you mention below.

I was being generous, assuming that he needed to find the original post to confirm who was speaking at the beginning of this thread of discussion.

But yes. We are dealing with somebody who feels qualified to decide that abortion is the wrong choice for a woman whose name he can't be bothered to read off the screen in front of him.

He's clearing making a RESPONSIBLE choice, though, right? And that woman, whatshername, is totally being IRRESPONSIBLE.

He? Now, who's the parody? :) Seems you 'forgot' to check my sex...or maybe you couldn't be bothered? Firstly, I am a female. Secondly, I did not pass judgement on her and I am not heartless. Me saying 'I hope she's not pregnant' 'I hope she doesn't have an abortion' are hardly condemning statements. And for the record, I would support her choice either way. EITHER way. The fact that I am hoping that she doesn't have to make that choice at all, does not make me a monster!
The only thing I passed judgement on, where your arguments. Which are always hostile and aggressive, if we don't agree with every little thing you say (thankyou for giving another fab example of your work)

Of course not. The unnamed and possibly nonexisting embryo is after all a far more important person.
I believe in the value of human life. Neesika's, and the 'possible embryo's'. I'm actually pro-choice. But not to the point where I would belittle others for thinking abortion, while a legitimate choice, is a pretty damn horrible thing. And I wouldn't wish it on anyone... And I wouldn't belittle someone for having a pro-life view either. Because I don't think this issue is black and white. And I think both sides have good points. And the whole point of discussing it, for me anyway, is to understand people and this issue better.

I think you're just closing your eyes to reality there.
Any woman finding out she's pregnant HAS to make at least one more decision, one way or another.


Naturally. All I'm saying is that Abortion shouldn't be on the table except in the obvious exceptions discussed earlier.


Not from the standpoint of the body, though. Just think about it : Increased risk of diabetes, back problems that can grow chronical, the lymbic system acting up, morning sickness... for the most part, a pregnancy cannot be distinguished from an illness from the biological view of the body providing.


I'd venture to say it's indistinguishable from illness from an outside perspective. The body knows what it's doing.


See, I've been wondering... you keep saying it's reduced by pregnancy. So, if I'm pregnant for say, 3 months, and then abort, that would also reduce the risk of breast cancer, right?
So the healthiest choice for all women would be to drop the contraception, get pregnant as often as possible and abort the unwanted ones?

I'm not a medical expert but I'd hypothesize that the reduced risk of breast cancer had to do with the stimulation of milk production glands, which occurs later in pregnancy.

Naturally. All I'm saying is that Abortion shouldn't be on the table except in the obvious exceptions discussed earlier.


So you're basically in favour of removing the decision from her?


I'd venture to say it's indistinguishable from illness from an outside perspective. The body knows what it's doing.

I could use Bottle's help on this one, as my medical knowledge is rather amateurish as well. But I do remember reading that it's not in fact the woman's body that knows what it's doing, it's the foetus' body sending out chemicals to supress the woman's body's natural reaction to this form of invasion. It basically shuts down part of her immune system, so it can thrive.


I'm not a medical expert but I'd hypothesize that the reduced risk of breast cancer had to do with the stimulation of milk production glands, which occurs later in pregnancy.

Well, late term abortions then...

I could use Bottle's help on this one, as my medical knowledge is rather amateurish as well. But I do remember reading that it's not in fact the woman's body that knows what it's doing, it's the foetus' body sending out chemicals to supress the woman's body's natural reaction to this form of invasion. It basically shuts down part of her immune system, so it can thrive.

I think you might be referring to a study from a couple years back (2006?) in which it was found that the fetus secretes proteins that suppress the pregnant woman's white blood cells.

I know there's a layer of the placenta which separates the growing fetus from the mother's system. (I looked up the name for the cells in this layer: syncytiotrophoblasts. Say it five times fast.) This layer helps keep the maternal immune system and the fetal immune system from fighting with one another.

Hey Murav,I've been doin' some thinking and I believe I may be more understanding of abortion in some circumstances.The rape and teen pregnancy topics are kinda confusing:(.I guess I'll need your opinion on something.Ok here it is,what would you think if a teen girl was a big floozy and she got pregnant wouldn't that be her fault?I need your feminine insight on this.
Ashmoria beat me to it, but I'll also point out that you, parents, society, etc., do not get to inflict pregnancy on a female person as a punishment for her doing or being something you don't like. Period.

Understand this: There are different questions and different decisions in play here. Her sexual conduct is one set of questions/decisions. Her pregnancy is a totally different set of questions/decisions. It does not matter whether one led to the other. Once a pregnancy occurs, it comes with its own issues, completely separate from anything else, that have to be faced in their own context. Deciding whether to carry the pregnancy or abort it is one of those entirely separate and independent questions/decisions.

I think you might be referring to a study from a couple years back (2006?) in which it was found that the fetus secretes proteins that suppress the pregnant woman's white blood cells.

I know there's a layer of the placenta which separates the growing fetus from the mother's system. (I looked up the name for the cells in this layer: syncytiotrophoblasts. Say it five times fast.) This layer helps keep the maternal immune system and the fetal immune system from fighting with one another.

Possibly, although I remember it to be more invasive than that. It basically said that the foetus rearranges some processes of the woman's body, taking direct influence on her metabolism, heart rate, etc.

I'll have to go read up on it... which is going to freak out my BF when he sees it, bet he'll assume I might be pregnant :p

Usually Bottle has good things to say, but sometimes its so aggressive and predjudice that I can't respect it.
I hope that this woman (sorry, forgot your name) isn't pregnant. But I also hope that she decides against an abortion.
Neesika (that's her name, btw) has already stated that, if she is pregnant, she will abort because pregnancy would be the wrong choice in her life now. She has already made the decision that she had to make because of her real life circumstances, which nobody else's hopes (neither yours nor mine) can change.

This is how abortion goes. Women make this unpleasant decision because they have to, because in the circumstances they are in, not aborting would be the wrong thing to do. It is not because they have been duped by some weird ideology, and it is most certainly not because they want to abort pregnancies. It is because they have to.

And that is why no laws banning abortion have ever done anything but criminalize women and doctors and lead to increased death and injury among both women and babies. Because laws that ban abortion are interfering with something that is necessary in people's lives. That necessity is what forces people to break those laws. And when those laws do force women to give birth, the reasons why abortion was necessary for them come to light in the negative outcomes of unwanted or unsupportable or unhealthy pregnancies and infants.

Here's another bit of aggression for you:


"Forgot your name"??

Really?

You can't be bothered to CLICK BACK ONE PAGE and learn a woman's name before you presume to pass judgment on her reproductive decisions?

This is making me wonder if the anti-choicers are deliberately thwarting any attempt to satirize them by being such monstrous self-parodies.

I know, really, honestly.

On the other hand, I kind of like seeing you get the shit for being aggressive for a change. I was getting bored with being constantly scolded by a certain person for being too "abrasive," as if (a) I had no reason to be abrasive and (b) scolding me would make any difference. ;)

And when those laws do force women to give birth, the reasons why abortion was necessary for them come to light in the negative outcomes of unwanted or unsupportable or unhealthy pregnancies and infants.
Which is precisely why knowing anything about the pregnant woman (like, say, HER NAME) is to be avoided. See, if you know something about her, you might actually know about her reasons for choosing to have an abortion. And then you might be forced to admit that none of those reasons will magically disappear if she is denied the right to choose. And then you might have to address the fact that you are neither willing nor able to help her with any other aspect of her situation, so it's pretty freaking lame of you to presume to tell her what choice she should make.

Naturally. All I'm saying is that Abortion shouldn't be on the table except in the obvious exceptions discussed earlier.

<snip>

So you're basically in favour of removing the decision from her?

<snip>

I think this pretty much sums up the majority anti-choice position.

By "majority" I mean that, while the anti-choice faction is the minority overall in society, the majority of anti-choicers agree with NB's position. (Only a small minority of anti-choicers would allow for no exceptions at all.)

Basically, their position boils down to this: They (using the law and government as their proxy) should get to control all aspects of a woman's sexual and reproductive life. They should get to decide whether she is allowed to have sex or not and under what circumstances. They should get to decide what, if any, "consequences" she will have to suffer as a result of having either approved sex or unapproved sex, willingly or unwillingly. They should get to decide whether her life or health should be put at risk (meaning they should get to decide whether to risk crippling or killing her for the sake of someone else). But under no circumstances should the woman herself be allowed to have any say in any part of it. In other words, all power to choose their own sexual and reproductive destiny must be removed from women.

When you look at the kinds of laws they propose, and at their arbitrarily composed lists of "exceptions," and at the language of judgment, blame and control with which they express their arguments, and the way the way they frame their arguments so as to give fetuses legal superiority and power over women, there really is no other way to understand them.

Possibly, although I remember it to be more invasive than that. It basically said that the foetus rearranges some processes of the woman's body, taking direct influence on her metabolism, heart rate, etc.

I'll have to go read up on it... which is going to freak out my BF when he sees it, bet he'll assume I might be pregnant :p

From what I recall, the benefits may stem from breastfeeding rather than pregnancy.

I forgot her screen name. But this forum is ultimately anonymous. I'm pretty sure everyone knew who I was talking about. And I didn't say anything rude, I apologised for forgetting her screen name: Neesika. I have since checked it. I never called her 'whatshername' like you mention below.

Like I said: you are too lazy to look up a few posts to find our her name. Seeing as how you can't be bothered to do that much, precisely why do you presume to tell other people what decisions they should and should not make? You haven't the least idea who they are, let alone what their situation is.


He? Now, who's the parody? :) Seems you 'forgot' to check my sex...or maybe you couldn't be bothered?

Hey, if I used the wrong pronoun then that's my bad. Good thing I'm not presuming to tell you what you can and cannot do with your (female) body. Also nice that my point stands whether you're female or male. See, your behavior was shitty no matter which set of genitals you have.

Do you really want to use the "Two Wrongs Make A Right" argument to support your lazy, disrespectful behavior?

Firstly, I am a female. Secondly, I did not pass judgement on her and I am not heartless.

I simply pointed out that your behavior was lazy and lame. You might also be judgmental and heartless, but that wasn't what I was taking on at this point.


Me saying 'I hope she's not pregnant' 'I hope she doesn't have an abortion' are hardly condemning statements.

You saying that you hope she doesn't have an abortion, when she has clearly stated that she has decided to have one and feels it is the right choice for her, is judgmental, rude, and condescending. You don't know her NAME, yet you "hope" that she makes a choice that she feels is wrong for herself? Pathetic.


And for the record, I would support her choice either way. EITHER way. The fact that I am hoping that she doesn't have to make that choice at all, does not make me a monster!

I didn't call you a monster. If you were a monster, I would accept that you are going to behave monstrously. It is because you are a human being that I expect you to behave like one.


The only thing I passed judgement on, where your arguments. Which are always hostile and aggressive, if we don't agree with every little thing you say (thankyou for giving another fab example of your work)

Yes, I'm hostile toward anti-choicers, and I'm aggressive in my posting style. You're welcome to keep providing your personal critique of my style, but I should warn you that you're hardly the first to do so, and your objections only serve to confirm for me that I'm 100% on track. If people like you are bothered by what I post...GOOD.


I believe in the value of human life. Neesika's, and the 'possible embryo's'. I'm actually pro-choice. But not to the point where I would belittle others for thinking abortion, while a legitimate choice, is a pretty damn horrible thing.

I will belittle people for thinking that. Abortion is not necessarily horrible, any more than childbirth is necessarily horrible. Both can be horrible, and both can be non-horrible. Clinging to a one-sided and one-dimensional view of either one is silly.


And I wouldn't wish it on anyone... And I wouldn't belittle someone for having a pro-life view either. Because I don't think this issue is black and white. And I think both sides have good points.

And again, that's where we differ. I don't think there is a single "good point" on the side of the forced pregnancy lobby. There is one side of this debate which believes that female human beings should be forced to carry pregnancies against their wishes, and one side which does not. It's that simple.

Think abortion is sad? Fine. Not an argument for forced pregnancy.
Think it's a complex issue? Fine. Still not an argument for forced pregnancy.
Think a human embryo is life? Fine. Still not an argument for forced pregnancy.
Think it would be better if women could prevent pregnancy in the first place, instead of getting abortions? Great. Welcome to the Pro-Choice movement. We've been working on that for the last generation or so, while the "pro-life" movement hampered us at every step.


And the whole point of discussing it, for me anyway, is to understand people and this issue better.
And a final, crucial difference. I understand anti-choicers just fine. They're really not remotely complicated. It's been years since I saw a new argument crop up from their camp.

I post on these threads so that the anti-choice propaganda is not permitted to stand unchallenged.

Well, and also because anti-choicers are just about the easiest targets you could ask for. It's rather relaxing.

Not really your problem to worry about. You don't know that really know anything about the law. I could be a egotistical 13-year old. :p

You could be... but around here we sort of have to take each other's word for it on things like that.


You should certainly feel free to argue law with me and the onus is on me to control any frustration. :cool:


Well it seems to me that now that we have that level of understanding, interpreting each other's intent in these posts will be smoother in the future.

Thanks for your detailed reply to my question about the SCOTUS. My 'wall' if you will is in this part:


So, let's now turn to Article III (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/), Section 1: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. ..."

I think it inherent in the idea of judicial power that the Court has the power to interpret law. As Justice Marshall declared in Marbury (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=5&invol=137), "It is emphatically the province and the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." That this was intended by the Founders to be so read is confirmed by Federalist #78 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm): "The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body."

For the first part, I see where it establishes the SCOTUS as the highest in authority in the judicial system, but that doesn't seem to me to say explicitly that the Court can determine the Constitutionality of Congressional Law. What am I missing?

The rest seems to reinforce, as I understand it, the idea that the SCOTUS has the power to interpret the meaning of laws (although Marshall's quote almost sounds like an override of Congressional Legislative supremacy, although it m ay be a flaw in my reading.)

Marbury vs. Madison was in 1803 and the Constitution was written in 1787 so I guess my confusion is, why, in the first 16 years, was that power not mentioned?

Which is precisely why knowing anything about the pregnant woman (like, say, HER NAME) is to be avoided. See, if you know something about her, you might actually know about her reasons for choosing to have an abortion. And then you might be forced to admit that none of those reasons will magically disappear if she is denied the right to choose. And then you might have to address the fact that you are neither willing nor able to help her with any other aspect of her situation, so it's pretty freaking lame of you to presume to tell her what choice she should make.

Also, it is imperative that anti-choicers either ignore or deny the harmful consequences of banning abortion. It is very hard to keep declaring that you are out to save babies if you acknowledge that your proposed laws only kill more actual babies. It is very hard to keep claiming moral superiority over your opponents, if you acknowledge that your supposedly moral laws will only inflict suffering upon millions of human beings and eventually bring harm to society itself by increasing criminal behavior. The first rule of propaganda: When reality doesn't support the program, delete reality.

Also, it is imperative that anti-choicers either ignore or deny the harmful consequences of banning abortion. It is very hard to keep declaring that you are out to save babies if you acknowledge that your proposed laws only kill more actual babies. It is very hard to keep claiming moral superiority over your opponents, if you acknowledge that your supposedly moral laws will only inflict suffering upon millions of human beings and eventually bring harm to society itself by increasing criminal behavior. The first rule of propaganda: When reality doesn't support the program, delete reality.
This is why it's such crap when people claim that the best thing is to find a "middle ground" on this issue.

How about...no? The anti-choice side will strip female human beings of fundamental freedoms, maim and kill women, and do precisely zilch to reduce the number of abortions. Why on Earth would any sane person want to compromise with that? "Okay, how about we only maim and kill half as many women as the anti-choicers want to maim and kill? That's a great compromise!"

Here's another bit of aggression for you:


"Forgot your name"??

Really?

You can't be bothered to CLICK BACK ONE PAGE and learn a woman's name before you presume to pass judgment on her reproductive decisions?

This is making me wonder if the anti-choicers are deliberately thwarting any attempt to satirize them by being such monstrous self-parodies.

Who shit in your cornflakes this morning? They said "I hope she doesn't abort" as opposed to all that business about being judgmental you're going on about.

So apparently it's not just pro-life people you have issues with, it's anybody that even dares to hope abortion won't be chosen even when the apropriateness of the ability to choose isn't brought into question by their statement.

just sayin'.

So you're basically in favour of removing the decision from her?

Legally, yes.


Well, late term abortions then...

Remember reduced risk of breast cancer is only one example. I could give you more if you're interested.

I know, really, honestly.

On the other hand, I kind of like seeing you get the shit for being aggressive for a change. I was getting bored with being constantly scolded by a certain person for being too "abrasive," as if (a) I had no reason to be abrasive and (b) scolding me would make any difference. ;)

Oh don't worry. I got plenty to go around. :p

Who shit in your cornflakes this morning? They said "I hope she doesn't abort" as opposed to all that business about being judgmental you're going on about.

So apparently it's not just pro-life people you have issues with, it's anybody that even dares to hope abortion won't be chosen even when the apropriateness of the ability to choose isn't brought into question by their statement.

just sayin'.

You did read Neesika's posts about how she had been thinking long and hard about it, and after taking everything into account had decided that an abortion would be for the best, right?

Even I found it highly insulting to tell her "I hope you won't abort". Seriously, she's an adult, she has kids already, she's the only one who can make a decision and she has done so. Saying "I hope you won't abort" is patronising and arrogant in the extreme.
"Well, I don't know you, I don't know your family situation nor your financial situation, I don't know about your other obligations, hopes or dreams, I don't know what shit you went through recently, or what shit that kid would have to go through in case you have it, but I do hope you'll have it no matter what."
How much more condescending can you possibly get???

You did read Neesika's posts about how she had been thinking long and hard about it, and after taking everything into account had decided that an abortion would be for the best, right?

Even I found it highly insulting to tell her "I hope you won't abort". Seriously, she's an adult, she has kids already, she's the only one who can make a decision and she has done so. Saying "I hope you won't abort" is patronising and arrogant in the extreme.
"Well, I don't know you, I don't know your family situation nor your financial situation, I don't know about your other obligations, hopes or dreams, I don't know what shit you went through recently, or what shit that kid would have to go through in case you have it, but I do hope you'll have it no matter what."
How much more condescending can you possibly get???

Yeah, I read it.

I just think you guys are making a mountain out of a molehill. It's one thing to be judgemental and attacking (even *I* didn't do that) but quite another to express a simple personal hope.

Legally, yes.

Well, thanks for clarifying that. It's a bit unlike you to admit misogyny so openly, usually you try and hide behind fake rational arguments a lot...


Remember reduced risk of breast cancer is only one example. I could give you more if you're interested.

Don't strain yourself. I could post lists of health risks resulting directly from pregnancy, and it would probably descend into a pissing contest.
Never been into those, that's somehow too male for my taste.

Yeah, I read it.

I just think you guys are making a mountain out of a molehill. It's one thing to be judgemental and attacking (even *I* didn't do that) but quite another to express a simple personal hope.

Depends on the context, doesn't it?
Seeing someone stand on a bridge and saying "I hope you'll jump" is just a simple personal hope, too, isn't it?

Well, thanks for clarifying that. It's a bit unlike you to admit misogyny so openly, usually you try and hide behind fake rational arguments a lot...


wth?

Ironically I just now sent you a TG saying thanks for being one of the people with whom it's possible to debate without it getting nasty. (right before I saw this post)


Don't strain yourself. I could post lists of health risks resulting directly from pregnancy, and it would probably descend into a pissing contest.
Never been into those, that's somehow too male for my taste.

... ok apparently I mistook the tone of this discussion.

Depends on the context, doesn't it?
Seeing someone stand on a bridge and saying "I hope you'll jump" is just a simple personal hope, too, isn't it?

Whatever you say.

wth?

Ironically I just now sent you a TG saying thanks for being one of the people with whom it's possible to debate without it getting nasty. (right before I saw this post)



... ok apparently I mistook the tone of this discussion.

Ok... I snapped, I'm sorry.
I hate it when people go at me like that, which is why I try avoiding it usually. But that statement of yours really just showed me that I had my hopes up too high.
Personally, I believe the one thing everybody, male or female, should always have complete autonomy over is his/her body. And I don't believe that starts with puberty, nor do I believe it ends with sex. It's the one "inalienable right" (to borrow that phrase) that all other human rights are grounded on. To remove it, in my view, is an act of indescribable violation.
I've experienced such violation, not in a forced pregnancy but in other circumstances, and how someone could honestly wish to have such violation made law is just beyond me. I'm sorry.

This is why it's such crap when people claim that the best thing is to find a "middle ground" on this issue.

How about...no? The anti-choice side will strip female human beings of fundamental freedoms, maim and kill women, and do precisely zilch to reduce the number of abortions. Why on Earth would any sane person want to compromise with that? "Okay, how about we only maim and kill half as many women as the anti-choicers want to maim and kill? That's a great compromise!"

And that's just another example of how the anti-choice faction ignores reality in order to push their propaganda. For instance, all their bullshit about "partial birth abortion" -- In every single instance, without exception, they try to claim two fictions as fact: (1) That late term abortions are elective and done on demand; and (2) that early term abortions mangle little baby heads. Both of these are obviously false, yet if they were to acknowledge the reality, they would have to abandon one of their favorite rallying cries of the uninformed mob, one of their favorite horror-show images with which to demonize their opponents (inheritors of the mantle of the "Vicious Hun" eating little French babies in WW1).

In addition to ignoring the reality of the social effects of banning abortion and the the medical reality of abortion, anti-choicers must also ignore the reality of the law. If they were to acknowledge that in the US, for instance, Roe is already a compromise offered to them, balancing their beloved religious beliefs with social and medical reality -- and that it even offers a sop to their fairy tales by granting even provisional credence to their unsupported beliefs about fetuses -- they would have to acknowledge that they have already been given their way. Women are not allowed to kill their unborn babies. Done and done. War over, they won. If they were to acknowledge that reality, then they would have to admit that they really are not out to save babies (because the law already does that for them). Rather they are out to reshape society in obedience to their rule and put themselves at the top of the social ladder, in a position to dictate how everyone will live, and that they hope to found their new order on the backs of women, for starters. There really is no other, further result they could be aiming for.

The thing that pisses me off most about Roe is that it is -- or rather, should be -- unnecessary. As Gift-of-god pointed out, Canada has no laws concerning abortion specifically at all, yet their abortion statistics are not significantly different from ours. There are no hordes of baby-hating women and doctors building up piles of fetal corpses in Canada, even though there are no laws saying they can't have late term abortions if they want to. Just like, in the US, there were no such piles before Roe. From this we might conclude that the law does not affect abortion; necessity does. Having a law will not reduce it. Not having a law will not increase it. The only reason we need a law at all is because of anti-choicers trying to use it to control women.

Our side already gave them a compromise that, technically, we didn't have to. Their side neither seeks nor offers any compromises. They will only be satisifed with getting their way 100%. What point is there, then, in this debate, except to expose the falseness of their propaganda?

Ok... I snapped, I'm sorry.
I hate it when people go at me like that, which is why I try avoiding it usually. But that statement of yours really just showed me that I had my hopes up too high.
Personally, I believe the one thing everybody, male or female, should always have complete autonomy over is his/her body. And I don't believe that starts with puberty, nor do I believe it ends with sex. It's the one "inalienable right" (to borrow that phrase) that all other human rights are grounded on. To remove it, in my view, is an act of indescribable violation.
I've experienced such violation, not in a forced pregnancy but in other circumstances, and how someone could honestly wish to have such violation made law is just beyond me. I'm sorry.

It's alright... I was just surprised because all along I've been arguing for abortion not to be legal, so I thought by answering your question I was simply stating my position as it were already known.

Since you went ahead and specified your position again I think it'll be valuable to do the same with mine.

For the record, I do believe people have a right to determine what's done with their own body. Believe it or not, we do agree on that. I think where we differ is that I think that right is superceded in a case like pregnancy because now, somebody else's body is involved and the two rights become contradictory. The 'tie breaker' as it were, IMHO is the fact that this situation results in choices made by one party and not the other, and thus an obligation arises.

It's pretty much that simple. I guess that's why there's room for exceptions in those cases I've specified before.

I can only guess at what you meant at the end of your paragraph where you mention having been violated, and it hurts my soul anytime I hear of it happening to people.

I know a lot of people, maybe you included, see little philosophical difference between that and the law disallowing abortion. I get it, I really do. I have been listening to you and to the others. We've been trading analogies and philosophical arguments for days and days now so be assured, I understand fully what you're saying.

But at the same time, what I've been trying to express is that from our (meaning mine and that of other pro-life folks) point of view, there's just no comparison. We see it from what you might think is an utterly alien perspective, just as some of what you guys think seems alien to me. Something like rape or slavery being like a disallowed abortion strikes me as a poor comparison, because of the way I see abortion and the philosophical elements surrounding it.

Can you honestly say you see the argument from both sides? Can you honestly say that you truly understand the perspective of a pro-choice advocate? I want you to, even if it doesn't change your mind. I want you to so that discussions like this one needn't be so difficult and repetitive.

Pro-lifers who say there should be an exception for rape are just goddamn fucking hypocrites. It's the 'baby' that matters, right?

Abortion is just like the kids dying in Africa. People love to bitch about how bad it is but most don't lift a finger to stop it because in reality, you don't give a fuck about kids dying in Africa and you don't give a fuck about dying fetuses beyond the desire to whine about it.


i can't say any less then i agree i don't care afther all if they made a little less children they might have enough food to feed them but instead to go running wild like mice and breed like rabbits because they will die anyway how the hell can you axpect me to feel sorry for them there comes by that we (i mean westrens) and middle eastern and far eastren people not to forget the south american people in fact even some african people managed to get things straight if yuo ask me they are just to lazy to really do something about it so why should i? its not my live they ruin but thier own thus i do not care

and well a few body's inside mother ha i can hardly call that live i doubt there is even a soul in it i mean common even if you'd torture them they wouldn't even notice so what does it matter and don't forget the women they do suffer and they are more usefull then a child that will just simply be thrown into a sewer because its unwanted but i geuss its just wat you call cruel

there comes by that humans meaning the entire human race looks out for its self and then for someone else by default and humans are cruel so i doubt anyone would accually really care if you want such compassion the don't become a human

well this is my opinion

there comes by now we are so nice crying about those poor african children what about those muslim children getting bombarded to hell thanks to those nice and helping usa amry? but they are helping yes helping them get killed so usa has more cash

i hope this proves my point humans are cruel so it doesn't really matter
humans should never have been born but i geuss something went wrong somewere

neo bretionnia you say there are two people body's involved i only note on persons body and and empty shell jet to come alive

but if you think i might not see the entire picture please let me know what i need to know to see it i find it improtand to see all sides


i say abortion should be allowed but only if the woman in question wants it because she has to live with it or not ofcourse and the body that is jet to be accually born wel i see its as something that jets needs to become something
some might call it playing with lifes but that what we do all day

muravyets
i had no idea about this i don't life anywere near usa and i don't really like to either but it sounds like a truth comming out and i wouldn't be surprised if you are right thanks for the insight :)

i do want to appoligize to anyone if i might came out a little to harsh on the subject usually i'd be morecarefull choosing my words but i think the more i talk about importand subjects like these the more "agressive" i become but i allow anyone to prove me wrong (if you can)

^

Brain asplody.

^

Brain asplody.For the weak... :p

So apparently it's not just pro-life people you have issues with, it's anybody that even dares to hope abortion won't be chosen even when the apropriateness of the ability to choose isn't brought into question by their statement.

just sayin'.

He or she has no right to hope for anything. It's entirely my decision.

Usually Bottle has good things to say, but sometimes its so aggressive and predjudice that I can't respect it.
I hope that this woman (sorry, forgot your name) isn't pregnant. But I also hope that she decides against an abortion.

Why would I decide against an abortion? I have two children already. I don't intend to give birth to any more. If I have children in the future, I will adopt, rather than bring more children into the world as some sort of stab at immortality. No pregnancy was intended or wanted, and if I am indeed pregnant, I will abort as soon as is possible. There is no question, no decision to make...I will get an abortion if I am pregnant.

He or she has no right to hope for anything. It's entirely my decision.

Not nitpicking, just looking to understand... why would someone else's hope diminish that?

If murder is defined as the killing of innocent human beings, and murder is wrong, then the only real issue in abortion is whether or not the fetus is a human being. Since there can be no proving at which point a fetus becomes a human being, there can be no true determination of whether or not abortion is murder. It is always better to wager that the fetus is human because the possible consequences of not considering it human outweigh the possible benefits of such a position.

If the fetus is human, and abortions are performed, then thousands of human beings are being murdered each year. Aside from various religious repercussions on the perpetrators of these crimes, this action would also deprive American citizens (albeit unborn ones) of their supposedly inaliable right. The advantages of abortion are mainly in the area of convenience, such as keeping a pregnancy secret, or avoiding the discomfort of pregnancy and the pains of birth.

Of course these advantages pale in comparison to the possible consequences. Since the line at which a fetus becomes human is arbitrary and undeterminable, the likelihood that the fetus is human is just as great as the likelihood that it is not.

Basically this is an application of the precautionary principle. If an action might cause severe or irreversible harm, and there is no scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, then the burden of proof falls upon those who would advocate taking the action.

. Since the line at which a fetus becomes human is arbitrary and undeterminable

Depends. How would you define a human being ?
If I sever your arm from your body, it is not considered a new human even though it has human cells. So bodyparts alone are not enough.

What then ? The brain ? The soul ? What makes a human human ?

If murder is defined as the killing of innocent human beings,

It's not.

Next?

Then define murder.

Already done. Many times over. Read the thread.


Very pedantic today, Bottle. Are you having a 'monthly'? Or are you always snippy?
Ah, menses humor. You must be the funniest little boy on the playground!

Not nitpicking, just looking to understand... why would someone else's hope diminish that?

Because it makes absolutely no sense. It's one thing to say, 'I hope you aren't pregnant'. I don't know yet for sure whether I am or not, and I've clearly expressed my desire to not be pregnant, so the sentiment would make sense. Imagine if someone instead said, 'I hope you ARE pregnant'. Don't you think that would be offensive? When I obviously do not wish to be pregnant, when being pregnant would lead me to make a very serious medical decision?

The outcome of the possible pregnancy is set. I'm not questioning it, or trying to make a decision...I've already decided. The outcome is not unknown (assuming pregnancy). Saying, 'I hope you don't get an abortion' is similar to saying, 'I hope you ARE pregnant' in that it directly contradicts my own feelings on the matter. It is disimilar in the sense that it goes further than wishing pregnancy upon me...it expresses a desire to exchange my decision for the decision of the wisher. I have made my decision, there is nothing that would sway me from it...that seemed clear enough in everything I've said so far. To wish I would change my mind ignores all that, and reflects a desire to impose another person's perspective and morality on MY body. Obviously, no one has the power to coerce me, so hey, not a big deal. But the statement was offensive because it indicated a lack of respect for my autonomy. A complete stranger's 'hope' in the matter is irrelevant, unsolicited, and arrogant.

Saying, 'I hope you don't get an abortion' is similar to saying, 'I hope you ARE pregnant' in that it directly contradicts my own feelings on the matter.
Saying "I hope you don't get an abortion" in this case is saying "I hope you remain pregnant against your clearly-stated wishes."

I wouldn't wish that on an enemy.

That I am my pretty. Try drugs or a big cock. That should at least go halfway to putting a smile on your face. Either that or slice a razor at the corners of your mouth.
Yes, yes, I'm sure a good raping will put me in my place. I'm very frightened of your great big cock. Really, I am. I'm positively laughing with terror...

acephalous infants have problems big enough that what is good or bad for them has more to do with how we deal with getting rid of them. but supposing nobody directly involved cared too much, would it be ok to give the remains to someone that really wanted to, for example, feed them through a sausage grinder?
This would have a visceral impact on many people; it is those people, not the acephalous, whose interests we would take into account.

This would have a visceral impact on many people; it is those people, not the acephalous, whose interests we would take into account.

Interesting...so you think that because it would bother people who were not connected to the remains in any way, we should prevent such treatment?

I can somewhat agree with that, but I'm not sure it's entirely rational or correct. Take animals that are put down in shelters, for example. People unconnected with the shelter, who might have no intention to own a pet, or have any interest in those pets whatsoever, might still be very upset to find that the remains of the animals were being fed to pigs. What would the basis for the discomfort be? A belief in the dignity of remains?

I can see no compelling reason to allow someone to do whatever they wish with the remains, but what if there were compelling reasons? Would that overcome public squeamishness? It seems to have in many other cases, such as animal testing and so on...

Because it makes absolutely no sense. It's one thing to say, 'I hope you aren't pregnant'. I don't know yet for sure whether I am or not, and I've clearly expressed my desire to not be pregnant, so the sentiment would make sense. Imagine if someone instead said, 'I hope you ARE pregnant'. Don't you think that would be offensive? When I obviously do not wish to be pregnant, when being pregnant would lead me to make a very serious medical decision?

The outcome of the possible pregnancy is set. I'm not questioning it, or trying to make a decision...I've already decided. The outcome is not unknown (assuming pregnancy). Saying, 'I hope you don't get an abortion' is similar to saying, 'I hope you ARE pregnant' in that it directly contradicts my own feelings on the matter. It is disimilar in the sense that it goes further than wishing pregnancy upon me...it expresses a desire to exchange my decision for the decision of the wisher. I have made my decision, there is nothing that would sway me from it...that seemed clear enough in everything I've said so far. To wish I would change my mind ignores all that, and reflects a desire to impose another person's perspective and morality on MY body. Obviously, no one has the power to coerce me, so hey, not a big deal. But the statement was offensive because it indicated a lack of respect for my autonomy. A complete stranger's 'hope' in the matter is irrelevant, unsolicited, and arrogant.

I appreciate your reply.

I didn't read the 'hope' thing that way at all, and no offense, but I think you're reading an awful lot into it. You're right that it would be offensive in the extreme if they had said 'I hope you ARE pregnant' because of exactly what you said... You've expressed your strong feelings on the matter so to respond that way would certainly be to basically try and rub your nose in it.

On the other hand, to say 'I hope you don't abort it' came across to me as meaning 'I hope you change your mind.' Futile though it may be, I doubt any more than that was meant. At worst, I'd think the person deserved the benefit of the doubt or a request to clarify. Clearly you've made your mind up, so I'd think such a comment would illicit no more thought than to say I hope you get a Blue Mustang even though you've always intended to buy a Candyapple Red one with racing stripes. (As opposed to 'I hope you NEVER get a Red Mustang! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA')

On the other hand, to say 'I hope you don't abort it' came across to me as meaning 'I hope you change your mind.' Futile though it may be, I doubt any more than that was meant. At worst, I'd think the person deserved the benefit of the doubt or a request to clarify.
The person who made the comment deserves no benefit. It was a foolish comment made in complete ignorance of my situation. She has no idea what the consequences of carrying another child to term would be for me, and to express HER preference was arrogant and overreaching. Perhaps she didn't realise that when she said it...hopefully she can see it now. But most likely not. People tend to want to avoid the consequences of their speech.

On the one side are people who want to make the decision for everyone. As in 'I don't want an abortion and I don't want anyone else to be allowed to have one'. Pro-lifers take this position. It never occurs to them that their decision is a matter of conscience and matters of conscience are personal.

On the other side are people who believe each person should make the decision for themselves. Thus a person could say 'I won't have an abortion for religious or other reasons but other women have to decide for themselves'

There is no side that says 'I want an abortion and I want everyone else to have one' although the 'pro-lifers' would have you think there is.

The person who made the comment deserves no benefit. It was a foolish comment made in complete ignorance of my situation. She has no idea what the consequences of carrying another child to term would be for me, and to express HER preference was arrogant and overreaching. Perhaps she didn't realise that when she said it...hopefully she can see it now. But most likely not. People tend to want to avoid the consequences of their speech.

But you seem to be attacking her as if she wanted you to keep the baby for the sake of remaining pregnant, which obviously isn't the case. I don't think however that you are truly offended by what she says to the extent you make out to be in your posts, I'm thinking this is more about demonstrating your point about the perils of pregnancy. Amirite?

If it's not a baby, then you're not pregnent!

On the one side are people who want to make the decision for everyone. As in 'I don't want an abortion and I don't want anyone else to be allowed to have one'. Pro-lifers take this position. It never occurs to them that their decision is a matter of conscience and matters of conscience are personal.

I assure you, it has occurred to us. Don't assume otherwise just because we still disagree. It is the position of pro-life advocates that the unborn is a life and protecting that life supercedes relativistic concerns.


On the other side are people who believe each person should make the decision for themselves. Thus a person could say 'I won't have an abortion for religious or other reasons but other women have to decide for themselves'

There is no side that says 'I want an abortion and I want everyone else to have one' although the 'pro-lifers' would have you think there is.

No. Pro-lifers have never asserted this. (At least, none that I'm aware of and I'd take issue with any who did.)

I won't belabor the point but this should be abundantly clear after reading a few pages of this thread.

Pro-lifers have never asserted this. (At least, none that I'm aware of and I'd take issue with any who did.

It's at the very least implied by them referring to people who are pro-choice as being pro-abortion.

Interesting...so you think that because it would bother people who were not connected to the remains in any way, we should prevent such treatment?
This is related to one of Pinker's examples, "Your dog is run over in the street; should you cook and eat it?" (people tend to think that is wrong, but without being able to argue rationally why), and to the issue on the "Japanese whalers" where I said that eating whale or monkey to me felt like cannibalism and inspired disdain for those who would do such a thing, to which Nervun replied that some Japanese found it viscerally repugnant that Australians would eat kangaroo, when kangaroo are so cute.

Our visceral feelings do have to be respected, although they often have to give way. The Andean plane-crash survivors did the right thing by eating corpses (killing someone to eat them I would have a problem with). Much of the abortion debate is really driven by pro-lifers' visceral feelings that abortion feels too much like infanticide, and their attempts at rational argument are really just a cover, for a position they have taken on non-rational grounds. Not that there is anything wrong with that: I take positions on visceral, non-rational grounds all the time. But sometimes it must give way to other concerns; in the hypothetical that was thrown at me, there were no other concerns given that would make it a good thing to shred the baby.

"Thanks for choosing abortion"...that might make a good bumper sticker :D

If I choose to have more children down the line, they'll be adopted.

Adoption is the way to go at least if you feel the need to have more than one or at most 2 kids.

But you seem to be attacking her as if she wanted you to keep the baby for the sake of remaining pregnant, which obviously isn't the case.
What is the case then? That she wants me not to abort...because...? Whatever the reasons are, they are not mine, they are clearly in opposition to mine, and that is knowable from what I've written on the matter in this thread. Either she wants me to stay pregnant for the sake of being pregnant, or she wants me to have the child so I can give it up for adoption, OR she wants me to suddenly decide to keep the child and raise it...or some other bizarre thing. None of these things is okay, and regardless of which motivated her wishing, it was a stupid thing to say. Stupid, and arrogant. I am not willing to go through 9 months of extreme physical changes for a child I do not want.

I don't think however that you are truly offended by what she says to the extent you make out to be in your posts, I'm thinking this is more about demonstrating your point about the perils of pregnancy. Amirite?

I have made no point about the perils of pregnancy, you're thinking of someone else. No, I'm not truly offended...it takes a lot more than thoughtlessness to offend me. The 'point' I'm demonstrating is that the intitial 'wish' is rooted in something offensive...a desire for my choice to be motivated by someone else's beliefs.

If it's not a baby, then you're not pregnent!

It isn't a baby until it is out of the mother...

It isn't a baby until it is out of the mother...

You must be Canadian :D This is an unquestioned legal principle that I quite agree with.

You must be Canadian :D This is an unquestioned legal principle that I quite agree with.

Nope, just an American... But still, the baby is what comes out of the birthing process.

It's at the very least implied by them referring to people who are pro-choice as being pro-abortion.

I think you'll find that's often done as a response to those who get a kick out of calling them 'anti-choice.'

I think you'll find that's often done as a response to those who get a kick out of calling them 'anti-choice.'

Except that "anti-choice" is an accurate label for those who oppose a woman's right to choose -- which is the issue.

"Pro-abortion" is not an accurate term for those that may well oppose abortion but believe in the right to choice.

You are right that part of the motive of calling someone "pro-abortion" is to sling mud, but that isn't justified by the use of the label "anti-choice."

Except that "anti-choice" is an accurate label for those who oppose a woman's right to choose -- which is the issue.

"Pro-abortion" is not an accurate term for those that may well oppose abortion but believe in the right to choice.

You are right that part of the motive of calling someone "pro-abortion" is to sling mud, but that isn't justified by the use of the label "anti-choice."

I'm not so sure about this. Would you call someone who opposed legalizing murder anti-choice?

I think you'll find that's often done as a response to those who get a kick out of calling them 'anti-choice.'

Not at all. "anti-choice" is a totally accurate description. Someone who is against giving women the right to choose is against them having a choice. Anti-choice is a perfectly accurate description.

"Pro abortion" however is not.

I'm not so sure about this. Would you call someone who opposed legalizing murder anti-choice?

Anti-choice on the topic of legalizing murder, yes.

Labels don't have to apply universally. Someone who is pro- or anti-choice on one topic can be the opposite on another.

Neo: Check your TGs

Adoption is the way to go at least if you feel the need to have more than one or at most 2 kids.
DELETED BECAUSE I MISSED A WORD IN GF'S SENTENCE.

Many apologies to GF, and thanks to Ashmoria and Deus Malum who pointed out my mistake.

What is the case then? That she wants me not to abort...because...? Whatever the reasons are, they are not mine, they are clearly in opposition to mine, and that is knowable from what I've written on the matter in this thread. Either she wants me to stay pregnant for the sake of being pregnant, or she wants me to have the child so I can give it up for adoption, OR she wants me to suddenly decide to keep the child and raise it...or some other bizarre thing. None of these things is okay, and regardless of which motivated her wishing, it was a stupid thing to say. Stupid, and arrogant. I am not willing to go through 9 months of extreme physical changes for a child I do not want.

<snip>
When I first read her remark, it struck me as being either:

-- She wants you not to abort because she would rather you just conform to her point of view without any other consideration taken into account; or

-- She just said she hoped you wouldn't abort because she didn't bother to actually read what you had written and did not know that your decision is already made, and she just says that sentence as a kind of knee jerk auto-line, like "Have a nice day" or "Get well soon" or something.

So, I read it as either selfishness or thoughtlessness, but rather shallow in either case.

<snipped due to authors retraction>

i think you need to read his statement again. i dont think that is what he said.

Oh, really? So if she already has two children to support, you think she should still commit herself and her entire family to the extreme financial costs of another pregnancy; to the loss of her income for a portion of the pregnancy during which she may not be able to work; to the risk of her being incapacitated for an extended period and possibly permanently disabled as a result of complications from the pregnancy, together with the related loss of income; even to the risk of her own death, leaving her existing children without a mother; as well as all the emotional and psychological stresses that a third (and this time unwanted) pregnancy will inflict upon the entire family -- all this so that -- what? She can conform to YOUR desires for how she should manage her life? So you'd be willing to sacrifice not only her interests but the interests of her existing children as well, just to promote your own interests?

Reread what he said. He's saying that if she WANTS another child, adoption is the best way to go, rather than going through another pregnancy.

Anti-choice on the topic of legalizing murder, yes.

Labels don't have to apply universally. Someone who is pro- or anti-choice on one topic can be the opposite on another.



I'm aware of that. It just seems odd to me to characterize folks who oppose what they believe is murder as "anti-choice". It's not like we do that for people who oppose assassinations.

I'm aware of that. It just seems odd to me to characterize folks who oppose what they believe is murder as "anti-choice". It's not like we do that for people who oppose assassinations.

I don't personally use the term anti-choice. Mostly it confuses the issue, and we end up getting bogged down in explaining labels rather than actually debating the subject.

I don't personally use the term anti-choice. Mostly it confuses the issue, and we end up getting bogged down in explaining labels rather than actually debating the subject.

Quite right. That's part of why I rarely bother debating with ideologues on either side anymore. The discussion just gets nonsensical and petty, generally.

i think you need to read his statement again. i dont think that is what he said.

Reread what he said. He's saying that if she WANTS another child, adoption is the best way to go, rather than going through another pregnancy.
Oops. My bad. Thanks for the correction. I deleted my remarks and am going to get more coffee now. :)

If murder is defined as the killing of innocent human beings, and murder is wrong, then the only real issue in abortion is whether or not the fetus is a human being. Since there can be no proving at which point a fetus becomes a human being, there can be no true determination of whether or not abortion is murder. It is always better to wager that the fetus is human because the possible consequences of not considering it human outweigh the possible benefits of such a position.

If the fetus is human, and abortions are performed, then thousands of human beings are being murdered each year. Aside from various religious repercussions on the perpetrators of these crimes, this action would also deprive human beings (albeit unborn ones) of their right to life. The advantages of abortion are mainly in the area of convenience, such as keeping a pregnancy secret, or avoiding the discomfort of pregnancy and the pains of birth.

Of course these advantages pale in comparison to the possible consequences. Since the line at which a fetus becomes human is arbitrary and undeterminable, the likelihood that the fetus is human is just as great as the likelihood that it is not.

Basically this is an application of the precautionary principle. If an action might cause severe or irreversible harm, and there is no scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, then the burden of proof falls upon those who
would advocate taking the action.

BTW, If you agreed with this post and are a regional delegate, go and approve my U.N. proposition. (It is pretty much the same wording as this, but with a resolution at the end).

If murder is defined as the killing of innocent human beings, and murder is wrong, then the only real issue in abortion is whether or not the fetus is a human being. Since there can be no proving at which point a fetus becomes a human being, there can be no true determination of whether or not abortion is murder. It is always better to wager that the fetus is human because the possible consequences of not considering it human outweigh the possible benefits of such a position.

If the fetus is human, and abortions are performed, then thousands of human beings are being murdered each year. Aside from various religious repercussions on the perpetrators of these crimes, this action would also deprive human beings (albeit unborn ones) of their right to life. The advantages of abortion are mainly in the area of convenience, such as keeping a pregnancy secret, or avoiding the discomfort of pregnancy and the pains of birth.

Of course these advantages pale in comparison to the possible consequences. Since the line at which a fetus becomes human is arbitrary and undeterminable, the likelihood that the fetus is human is just as great as the likelihood that it is not.

Basically this is an application of the precautionary principle. If an action might cause severe or irreversible harm, and there is no scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, then the burden of proof falls upon those who
would advocate taking the action.

BTW, If you agreed with this post and are a regional delegate, go and approve my U.N. proposition. (It is pretty much the same wording as this, but with a resolution at the end).

It's alright... I was just surprised because all along I've been arguing for abortion not to be legal, so I thought by answering your question I was simply stating my position as it were already known.

Since you went ahead and specified your position again I think it'll be valuable to do the same with mine.

For the record, I do believe people have a right to determine what's done with their own body. Believe it or not, we do agree on that. I think where we differ is that I think that right is superceded in a case like pregnancy because now, somebody else's body is involved and the two rights become contradictory. The 'tie breaker' as it were, IMHO is the fact that this situation results in choices made by one party and not the other, and thus an obligation arises.

It's pretty much that simple. I guess that's why there's room for exceptions in those cases I've specified before.

I can only guess at what you meant at the end of your paragraph where you mention having been violated, and it hurts my soul anytime I hear of it happening to people.

I know a lot of people, maybe you included, see little philosophical difference between that and the law disallowing abortion. I get it, I really do. I have been listening to you and to the others. We've been trading analogies and philosophical arguments for days and days now so be assured, I understand fully what you're saying.

But at the same time, what I've been trying to express is that from our (meaning mine and that of other pro-life folks) point of view, there's just no comparison. We see it from what you might think is an utterly alien perspective, just as some of what you guys think seems alien to me. Something like rape or slavery being like a disallowed abortion strikes me as a poor comparison, because of the way I see abortion and the philosophical elements surrounding it.

Can you honestly say you see the argument from both sides? Can you honestly say that you truly understand the perspective of a pro-choice advocate? I want you to, even if it doesn't change your mind. I want you to so that discussions like this one needn't be so difficult and repetitive.


It's not that utterly alien, I remember very well thinking much on the same line myself for a while.
I grew up Roman Catholic, and while the Catholic church is very progressive in some areas (compared to other churches), women's rights and reproductive rights aren't their forte. I was taught that a foetus is a small human, I was shown those grizzly pictures of late-term abortions and got plenty of exposure to all the emotional talk. When I was a teenager in school, the discussion about abortion in Germany were raging. At the time, abortion in Germany was illegal with the following exceptions : Danger to the mother in the course of the pregnancy, Rape, a handicapped child, and what was called "social indication", meaning that the mother's life would be considerably mpacted socially should she carry the pregnancy to term (financial issues, school, etc).
The last bit made abortion legal for everyone who could eloquently put up an excuse, and the rest went to the Netherlands to abort.
There was much debate about the issue, and eventually they came up with a compromise that still cracks me up, after all those years : Abortion in Germany is illegal, but not punishable.

Anyway, yes, I do remember being abhored by the idea of abortion, since it meant killing a small human. I regarded it with selfrighteous outrage, I would label women who did it as selfish and irresponsible and considered it criminal. I can understand where you make the distinction.
But I've grown up since.
I've been through a situation in which, had it turned out that I really was pregnant the two options I would have considered would have been abortion or suicide.
I have friends who had abortions. (I've also got friends who had kids they shouldn't have had).
I've had a good hard dose of reality, and another good dose of plain knowledge on facts, and it made me realise two things :

1) Women will have abortions. Women everyday are faced with pregnancies they cannot in any way carry to term, for more reasons than I could possibly list here. They have become pregnant under whatever circumstances (and if you think that the distinction between rape and consensual sex is always 100% clear, I'd advise you to talk to women on here a bit more), and they simply cannot have that child.
They will do whatever it takes to abort. And the thought of killing themselves often isn't as far removed as you might want to think.
They will abort, whether it's legal or not. They will abort, whether it's safe to do so or not.
Saying you want abortions outlawed will in reality only lead to abortions being performed in unsafe, unregulated ways, and will do immense harm.

2) I simply cannot any longer believe that an embryo is a human being. We measure life and death by brain acitvity, if someone on life support is braindead, he's dead. Embryos don't have brain activity until a good bit into the pregnancy, until somewhere around the 20th week. Until that date, I cannot possibly regard them as living human persons. Yes, they may or may not grow into humans. But at the time most abortions take place, they simply are not. And to demand that women have to offer their bodies for an unwanted human to develop off them is just utterly unethical and immoral.

If murder is defined as the killing of innocent human beings, and murder is wrong,

It's not

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human person with malice aforethought. Murder is generally distinguished from other forms of homicide by the elements of malice aforethought and the lack of lawful justification.

For the first part, I see where it establishes the SCOTUS as the highest in authority in the judicial system, but that doesn't seem to me to say explicitly that the Court can determine the Constitutionality of Congressional Law. What am I missing?

The rest seems to reinforce, as I understand it, the idea that the SCOTUS has the power to interpret the meaning of laws (although Marshall's quote almost sounds like an override of Congressional Legislative supremacy, although it m ay be a flaw in my reading.)

Marbury vs. Madison was in 1803 and the Constitution was written in 1787 so I guess my confusion is, why, in the first 16 years, was that power not mentioned?

1. Let's note that I have already laid out some of the history of judicial review and tried to explain that the power did not simply come from nowhere in 1803? To the contrary, the power was established in English common law, in practice in the United States, and recognized by the Founders prior to Marbury. But I'll come back to that.

2. The Court's jurisdiction is limited to cases and controversies that come before it. It cannot set out its own agenda, but rather must wait for an issue to arise before it. This is one of the primary reasons why Federalist #78 (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_78.html) calls the judiciary "the least dangerous branch" even though it explicitly sets forth the power of judicial review. So, although the Court came close to the issue in earlier cases (see more below), the issue was first squarely presented to the Court in Marbury.

3. I'm not sure what you think the "judicial power" is or how the Court could possibly decide all cases arising under the Constitution without interpreting what the Constitution says. Surely, if the Court must obey and interpret the Consitution, it must declare void any law that does not agree with the Constitution! This is not a matter of usurping legislative supremacy, but rather is one of the checks and balances imposed upon Congress.

4. Back to history. I've already established that judicial review was not a new idea and had existed under common law. Here is more from Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The Powers of the Federal Court 1801-1835, 49 U. Chi. L. Rev. 646, 655-656 (1982):

The Privy Council had occasionally applied the ultra vires principle to set aside legislative acts contravening municipal and colonial charters. State courts had set aside state statutes under constitutions no more explicit about judicial review than the federal. The Supreme Court itself had measured a state law against a state constitution in Cooper v. Telfair, 4 U.S. (4 Dall.) 14 (1800), and had struck down another under the supremacy clause in Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 199 (1796); in both cases the power of judicial review was expressly affirmed. Even Acts of Congress had been struck down by federal circuit courts, and the Supreme Court had reviewed the constitutionality of a federal statute in Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 171 (1796). Justice James Iredell had expressly asserted this power both in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 (1793), and in Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386 (1798), and [Justice] Chase had acknowledged it in Cooper. In the [Consitutional] Convention, moreover, both proponents and opponents fo the proposed Council of Revision had recognized that the courts would review the validity of congresssional legislation, and Alexander Hamilton had proclaimed the same doctrine in The Federalist.

5. Also, I'll note the following from A. Bickel, The Least Dangerous Branch 15-16 (1965):

[It] is as clear as such matters can be that the Framers of the Constitution specifically expected that the federal courts would assume a power -- of whatever exact dimensions --to pass on the constitutionality of actions of the Congress and the President, as well as of the several states. Moreover, not even a colorable showing of decisive historical evidence to the contrary can be made. Nor can it be maintained that the language of the Constitution is compelling the other way.


EDIT: 6. On the question of judicial vs. legislative supremacy, Hamilton explains in Federalist #78 (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_78.html):

If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.



I hope these points help answer your questions.

I think you'll find that's often done as a response to those who get a kick out of calling them 'anti-choice.'

*lol Sorry, but.... do you see the irony in this?
When I asked you straight out if you wanted to take away the choice women have about abortion or not, you said "yes".

I think you'll find that's often done as a response to those who get a kick out of calling them 'anti-choice.'

That's occasionally the reason... Of course 'anti-choice' is a lot more accurate a label for 'pro-lifers' than 'pro-abortion' is for 'pro-choicers'.

Not at all. "anti-choice" is a totally accurate description. Someone who is against giving women the right to choose is against them having a choice. Anti-choice is a perfectly accurate description.

"Pro abortion" however is not.

*runs and hides; waiting for the apocalypse to start*
prompted by me and Neo Art agreeing
;)

Neesika (that's her name, btw) has already stated that, if she is pregnant, she will abort because pregnancy would be the wrong choice in her life now. She has already made the decision that she had to make because of her real life circumstances, which nobody else's hopes (neither yours nor mine) can change.

And that is why no laws banning abortion have ever done anything but criminalize women and doctors and lead to increased death and injury among both women and babies. Because laws that ban abortion are interfering with something that is necessary in people's lives. That necessity is what forces people to break those laws. And when those laws do force women to give birth, the reasons why abortion was necessary for them come to light in the negative outcomes of unwanted or unsupportable or unhealthy pregnancies and infants.
I'm not asking for the laws to be changed. I would rather have women medically treated in a safe way, and have the option of counselling offered to them, then to have them hurting themselves or seeking an illegal abortion. (and I did find out her name and re-posted, but thankyou :) )

I forgot her screen name. But this forum is ultimately anonymous. I'm pretty sure everyone knew who I was talking about. And I didn't say anything rude, I apologised for forgetting her screen name: Neesika. I have since checked it. I never called her 'whatshername' like you mention below.



He? Now, who's the parody? :) Seems you 'forgot' to check my sex...or maybe you couldn't be bothered? Firstly, I am a female. Secondly, I did not pass judgement on her and I am not heartless. Me saying 'I hope she's not pregnant' 'I hope she doesn't have an abortion' are hardly condemning statements. And for the record, I would support her choice either way. EITHER way. The fact that I am hoping that she doesn't have to make that choice at all, does not make me a monster!
The only thing I passed judgement on, where your arguments. Which are always hostile and aggressive, if we don't agree with every little thing you say (thankyou for giving another fab example of your work)


I believe in the value of human life. Neesika's, and the 'possible embryo's'. I'm actually pro-choice. But not to the point where I would belittle others for thinking abortion, while a legitimate choice, is a pretty damn horrible thing. And I wouldn't wish it on anyone... And I wouldn't belittle someone for having a pro-life view either. Because I don't think this issue is black and white. And I think both sides have good points. And the whole point of discussing it, for me anyway, is to understand people and this issue better.

Which is precisely why knowing anything about the pregnant woman (like, say, HER NAME) is to be avoided. See, if you know something about her, you might actually know about her reasons for choosing to have an abortion. And then you might be forced to admit that none of those reasons will magically disappear if she is denied the right to choose. And then you might have to address the fact that you are neither willing nor able to help her with any other aspect of her situation, so it's pretty freaking lame of you to presume to tell her what choice she should make.

Oh for goodness sake! I re-posted her name, if that is your main objection.

As for your assumptions that I would deny her the right to choose. I think you pulled that one out of your ass. I said no such thing.
No, I don't know anything about her situation. And I wasn't objecting to her having an abortion...I was saying I hope she doesn't have to! I'm not out there glorifying abortion like you...I think its a traumatic procedure. I hope she's not pregnant. And I hope she doesn't have to have an abortion.

And for the record, I hope she doesn't have to carry to term a pregnancy she doesn't want.

I am not asking for her right to choose be taken away...I was stating that I hope she doesn't have to choose.

Hey, if I used the wrong pronoun then that's my bad. Good thing I'm not presuming to tell you what you can and cannot do with your (female) body. Also nice that my point stands whether you're female or male. See, your behavior was shitty no matter which set of genitals you have.

Do you really want to use the "Two Wrongs Make A Right" argument to support your lazy, disrespectful behavior?

I simply pointed out that your behavior was lazy and lame. You might also be judgmental and heartless, but that wasn't what I was taking on at this point..

So, its not okay for me to forget her name, but its okay for you to forget to ask me whether I am male or female? Hypocrite.
I'm not using the 2 wrongs make a right argument. I am neither lazy or disrespestful. I made a mistake, AND I apologised. I was in a bit of a rush when I wrote that meesage. But I don't see why I should have to justify that to you of all people!
And unless you are willing to be accountable to the same standards you have set me, I suggest you be quiet.


You saying that you hope she doesn't have an abortion, when she has clearly stated that she has decided to have one and feels it is the right choice for her, is judgmental, rude, and condescending. You don't know her NAME, yet you "hope" that she makes a choice that she feels is wrong for herself? Pathetic..
No, saying I hope she doesn't have an abortion is not judgemental, rude or condescending. It is expressing a hope....I am not wishing anything bad upon her....whether it is an abortion or an unwanted pregnancy. And my 'hope' was good natured.
But honestly, if she didn't want to be critised (and I have not done so) then why come to a public forum, where there is passionate debate between pro-life and pro-choice...and say HEY I'm going to have an abortion! In the kindest way possible, what did she expect?




Yes, I'm hostile toward anti-choicers, and I'm aggressive in my posting style. You're welcome to keep providing your personal critique of my style, but I should warn you that you're hardly the first to do so, and your objections only serve to confirm for me that I'm 100% on track. If people like you are bothered by what I post...GOOD.

If YOU ACTUALLY READ MY POST....and didn't delete what was convenient for your arguments...you would have noticed that I am Pro-choice.
For the record. I believe in women's right to control their body and their circumstance. I believe in educating women about ALL the options if she becomes pregnant. I believe that the laws at the moment are adequate and would be very upset if they were changed. I believe no-one has the right to condemn a woman for making the difficult choice of having an abortion.

I see no need for your aggression. You jump the gun. In fact, you're so busy ranting and raving that you miss entire points....e.g. being hostile to an anti-choicer, who's posted REPEATEDLY that SHE is pro-choice. In fact, most of the time you will pick one or two words out of someone's post and use that as a springboard for another nonsensical lecture.
If you can't respect anyone's views other than your own, then seriously, whats the point? We get that you are pro-choice. WE GET IT. And most of the time I agree with what you say....but I disagree with the way you say it.


I will belittle people for thinking that. Abortion is not necessarily horrible, any more than childbirth is necessarily horrible. Both can be horrible, and both can be non-horrible. Clinging to a one-sided and one-dimensional view of either one is silly.
You'd belittle anyone who doesn't agree with you 100% on every topic.

Abortion is not a pleasant experience. I'm NOT saying that pregnancy is a bowl of cherries either....before you go wandering down that road again...
What I was saying is that I hope she's not pregnant, and I hope she doesn't have to make the decisions surrounding that.

And the only person who is one-sided is you. I am very open to other people's ideas. You like the sound of your own voice. I will question someone without assassinating their character, you call an opinion other than yours propaganda. And you've openly admitted that you ENJOY flinging mud to people who don't agree with you. So when it comes to one sided, you're top of the class.

And again, that's where we differ. I don't think there is a single "good point" on the side of the forced pregnancy lobby. There is one side of this debate which believes that female human beings should be forced to carry pregnancies against their wishes, and one side which does not. It's that simple.

Think abortion is sad? Fine. Not an argument for forced pregnancy.
Think it's a complex issue? Fine. Still not an argument for forced pregnancy.
Think a human embryo is life? Fine. Still not an argument for forced pregnancy.
Think it would be better if women could prevent pregnancy in the first place, instead of getting abortions? Great. Welcome to the Pro-Choice movement. We've been working on that for the last generation or so, while the "pro-life" movement hampered us at every step.
This is not as black and white an issue as you would demand it be. Majority of the pro-lifers are very lenient in their views. I've had some very nice conversations with them. I don't have to agree with them 100%. But I like finding out where they're coming from before I label them.

And I'm not arguing forced pregnancy. Yet another example where you create something out of nothing. Where in my post did i say that?? Seriously. Learn to read...I know its like really hard and stuff...but yeah, you could like totally learn something :P
Again, thankyou for proving that you don't even need to argue with anyone. You are a little predictable. You hound someone until they just throw their hands in the air and say, This is retarded! She's not listening...and then you jump up and down going Yay! I won. I'm 100% right and they were wrong. You love to have the last word Bottle. Even when someone is agreeing with you. Its pathetic.


I post on these threads so that the anti-choice propaganda is not permitted to stand unchallenged. QUOTE]

It isn't propaganda. If someone is out and out lying, then yeah, correct them. But the name calling, the aggression....why is it necessary?

[QUOTE=Neesika;13424311]He or she has no right to hope for anything. It's entirely my decision.

I don't have the right to hope?

Why would I decide against an abortion? I have two children already. I don't intend to give birth to any more. If I have children in the future, I will adopt, rather than bring more children into the world as some sort of stab at immortality. No pregnancy was intended or wanted, and if I am indeed pregnant, I will abort as soon as is possible. There is no question, no decision to make...I will get an abortion if I am pregnant.
I'm not asking you to make a different decision to the one you've made. That was never my intention. I only wished you well. And I'm very sorry if you were offended by that. I don't want you to be pregnant against your wishes. I don't want you to have to have an abortion, because its not a nice thing to go through. I was simply hoping that everything would be okay, and you wouldn't be in a position where you'd have to choose. Thats all :(

Because it makes absolutely no sense. It's one thing to say, 'I hope you aren't pregnant'. I don't know yet for sure whether I am or not, and I've clearly expressed my desire to not be pregnant, so the sentiment would make sense. Imagine if someone instead said, 'I hope you ARE pregnant'. Don't you think that would be offensive? When I obviously do not wish to be pregnant, when being pregnant would lead me to make a very serious medical decision?

The outcome of the possible pregnancy is set. I'm not questioning it, or trying to make a decision...I've already decided. The outcome is not unknown (assuming pregnancy). Saying, 'I hope you don't get an abortion' is similar to saying, 'I hope you ARE pregnant' in that it directly contradicts my own feelings on the matter. It is disimilar in the sense that it goes further than wishing pregnancy upon me...it expresses a desire to exchange my decision for the decision of the wisher. I have made my decision, there is nothing that would sway me from it...that seemed clear enough in everything I've said so far. To wish I would change my mind ignores all that, and reflects a desire to impose another person's perspective and morality on MY body. Obviously, no one has the power to coerce me, so hey, not a big deal. But the statement was offensive because it indicated a lack of respect for my autonomy. A complete stranger's 'hope' in the matter is irrelevant, unsolicited, and arrogant.
Not wishing to sway you from anything. And to be honest, I don't know why you posted the fact you've decided to have an abortion, on a thread debating whether abortion is ethical...and expect someone not to have challenged it. Why tell a bunch of 'complete strangers' about your personal choices? If you weren't allowing for those personal choices to be included in the debate?
I wasn't delibrately trying to offend you...I only wish you the best...

Saying "I hope you don't get an abortion" in this case is saying "I hope you remain pregnant against your clearly-stated wishes."

I wouldn't wish that on an enemy.

Not wishing to sway you from anything. And to be honest, I don't know why you posted the fact you've decided to have an abortion, on a thread debating whether abortion is ethical...and expect someone not to have challenged it. Why tell a bunch of 'complete strangers' about your personal choices? If you weren't allowing for those personal choices to be included in the debate?
I wasn't delibrately trying to offend you...I only wish you the best...

Neesika isn't exacly a "complete stranger" here.
It's a debate, and she posted her current experiences. I posted my past experiences. She knew that people were going to pick on them and debate them, same as they did with mine. But that doesn't mean that telling her that you hope she'll go against her own wishes isn't somewhat offensive.

How about the name "anti-life"? [ducks]

How about the name "anti-life"? [ducks]

Objection: Asked and answered.

pregnancy isnt a punishment. you dont purnish a "bad" girl with a baby.

so if a teen girl finds herself pregnant, it doesnt really matter how she got that way. its still her choice as to whether or not to carry it to term. its her body, her right to choose medical treatment, her future. no one else should be able to either force her to have the baby or to abort it. (its just as bad when a girl's parents try to force her to have an abortion "for her own good")

Why don't you answer your own question.

You seem to be toying with the idea that a girl who is a "big floozy" shouldn't be allowed to choose to have an abortion, but a girl who isn't a floozy should be allowed to make that choice.

So, where are you going to draw the line?

If a girl has had four partners, does that qualify her for "floozy" status, or does it take five? What if she's only had sex with each guy one time, compared to a girl who's had constant crazy monkey sex with a single partner?

Basically, how much sex is a girl allowed to have before you take her rights away?

What about STD treatment? Should a "floozy" be forced to go without treatment if she gets an STD?

Ashmoria beat me to it, but I'll also point out that you, parents, society, etc., do not get to inflict pregnancy on a female person as a punishment for her doing or being something you don't like. Period.

Understand this: There are different questions and different decisions in play here. Her sexual conduct is one set of questions/decisions. Her pregnancy is a totally different set of questions/decisions. It does not matter whether one led to the other. Once a pregnancy occurs, it comes with its own issues, completely separate from anything else, that have to be faced in their own context. Deciding whether to carry the pregnancy or abort it is one of those entirely separate and independent questions/decisions.

Thanks all three of you for your responses.Ok now I understand a little better how you guys feel.But four guy affairs is defintly floozy status and I think that a girl like that is just asking for trouble.A one on one relationship is different I guess,but I'm still iffy about abortion even in that case.

Neesika isn't exacly a "complete stranger" here.
It's a debate, and she posted her current experiences. I posted my past experiences. She knew that people were going to pick on them and debate them, same as they did with mine. But that doesn't mean that telling her that you hope she'll go against her own wishes isn't somewhat offensive.

Thats not what I was saying...I was saying she posted her personal experiences to complete strangers....and while you might know her well, there are many who don't, and many people contribute to these forums.
And if she knew that people were going to debate them, the same as they did with yours, then I don't see how someone can be offended when that happens..
And I didn't hope she would go against her own wishes. I hoped she wouldn't be in the situation where she has to choose. And I have apologised if that has been misinterpreted, because I really wouldn't want her thinking that, even though we don't know anything about each other.

Thanks all three of you for your responses.Ok now I understand a little better how you guys feel.But four guy affairs is defintly floozy status and I think that a girl like that is just asking for trouble.A one on one relationship is different I guess,but I'm still iffy about abortion even in that case.

so you think that the availability of abortion should be linked to the woman's behavior in how she got pregnant?

are you thinking that there should be some TEST to determine whether or not a woman is allowed to have an abortion?

if so, how would it work?

Except that "anti-choice" is an accurate label for those who oppose a woman's right to choose -- which is the issue.

"Pro-abortion" is not an accurate term for those that may well oppose abortion but believe in the right to choice.

You are right that part of the motive of calling someone "pro-abortion" is to sling mud, but that isn't justified by the use of the label "anti-choice."

Not at all. "anti-choice" is a totally accurate description. Someone who is against giving women the right to choose is against them having a choice. Anti-choice is a perfectly accurate description.

"Pro abortion" however is not.

*lol Sorry, but.... do you see the irony in this?
When I asked you straight out if you wanted to take away the choice women have about abortion or not, you said "yes".

That's occasionally the reason... Of course 'anti-choice' is a lot more accurate a label for 'pro-lifers' than 'pro-abortion' is for 'pro-choicers'.

Boy, you all liked that one, didn't you? I can always tell when I hit a nerve.

Let's be clear about something. Pro-life advocates want to remove abortion as an option. Yep. You got me. Gratz.

But no, 'anti-choice' is NOT in the least bit accurate unless you limit your frame of reference to the point of hyperbole.

A lot of you guys try to pigeonhole every pro-lifer into some tiny little easy to argue against box and any attempt to show that it's not so simple is usually met with a lot of resistance. Hey guys, I'm real sorry we don't fit the cookie-cutter idea that the groupthink crowd likes to paint us as, but I just gotta be me.

There are choices for pregnant women. We just think it's wrong for abortion to be one of them (except in previously noted circumstances*). But guys, that's ONE choice. ONE option. ONE approach to a problem. We see a problem with it.

So to call us 'anti-choice' is inaccurate because it paints the wrong picture... But I don't have to tell you that. You guys know it already.

...but it's so much less satisfying, isn't it?

You know, I could as easily justify calling pro-choice advocates 'pro-abortion' as some of you have justified saying 'anti-choice.' And I know if I did that people would start screaming bloody murder about how I'm slapping labels and being inaccurate and so on. I don't do that though, because I know people find it insulting and it would do NOTHING to improve communication between the sides. When I say 'pro-choice' in referring to my debate opponents, do not take it as an implicit acknowledgment that I'm somehow agreeing that the issue is about choice and nothing more.

(*I hate having to specify over and over that there are exceptions. Most of you guys already know what I mean, so normally I wouldn't have to keep saying it... But you just know if I don't somebody who hasn't read the thread or been paying attention will come waltzing in and demand that I answer for rape cases, etc.)

so you think that the availability of abortion should be linked to the woman's behavior in how she got pregnant?

are you thinking that there should be some TEST to determine whether or not a woman is allowed to have an abortion?

if so, how would it work?

Hmm...a test.I'll think about that,but that's too far even for me!I think how she got pregnant should play a small part.I can't believe I'm actually starting to become a less radical anti-abortionist.I'm scaring myself.

I can't believe I'm actually starting to become a less radical anti-abortionist.I'm scaring myself.

Don't be surprised if some ideas start rubbing off on you...
I mean.. NSG is literally a rave full of liberal dry humpers.

Don't be surprised if some ideas start rubbing off on you...
I mean.. NSG is literally a rave full of liberal dry humpers.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Not necessarily a bad thing but...
I don't want them librul folks humping me. Or those gun totin' right wingers either for that matter.

Sadly, being a moderate, I'm always in the middle of some sort of love/hate liberal and conservative dry humped sandwich.

Hmm...a test.I'll think about that,but that's too far even for me!I think how she got pregnant should play a small part.I can't believe I'm actually starting to become a less radical anti-abortionist.I'm scaring myself.

heres the thing im getting at:

we all have opinions of when abortion is appropriate. we all have opinions on what constitutes proper sexual behavior. it differs from person to person but we all have lines that we think shouldnt be crossed.

the question is whether or not our opinions should have any force of law. whether our rules are appropriate for everyone, if they could ever be enforced, if enforcing them would make things better or worse, where that line should be drawn.

let me give you an example.

suppose you decide that abortion is only appropriate in the case of rape and incest. what does a woman have to do to PROVE that she was raped? a majority of rapes go unreported to the police and a minority of those ever result in a rape conviction. (not to mention that the conviction would occur long after the baby would have been born)

so if you are to be compassionate, you would have to take a woman at her word if the exception is to have any meaning.

the practical effect--every woman wanting an abortion claims to have been raped. you force a woman to go through the indignity of lying to get a medical procedure. its unworkable.

it used to be that when there was an exception for the health of the mother, a woman would go to a sympathetic doctor and claim that if she had to carry the pregnancy to term she would kill herself. that counted as a danger to her health so she would be given an abortion. maybe it was true, more likely it wasnt.

do you REALLY want a baby to be a punishment? do you REALLY want more babies born to women who dont want them and arent fit to be mothers anyway? do you really want pregnancy to be forced on women based on your judgement of how nice they are?

is a girl deciding to have sex such a terrible thing that she must be forced to alter her whole life because of it? would YOU want to be forced to leave school and spend the next few years at home taking care of a baby because YOU had unwise sex? why should a baby be a punishment only for the girl involved? if you would judge yourself a good person, shouldnt you judge her on the same basis?

Boy, you all liked that one, didn't you? I can always tell when I hit a nerve.

Let's be clear about something. Pro-life advocates want to remove abortion as an option. Yep. You got me. Gratz.

But no, 'anti-choice' is NOT in the least bit accurate unless you limit your frame of reference to the point of hyperbole.

A lot of you guys try to pigeonhole every pro-lifer into some tiny little easy to argue against box and any attempt to show that it's not so simple is usually met with a lot of resistance. Hey guys, I'm real sorry we don't fit the cookie-cutter idea that the groupthink crowd likes to paint us as, but I just gotta be me.

There are choices for pregnant women. We just think it's wrong for abortion to be one of them (except in previously noted circumstances*). But guys, that's ONE choice. ONE option. ONE approach to a problem. We see a problem with it.

So to call us 'anti-choice' is inaccurate because it paints the wrong picture... But I don't have to tell you that. You guys know it already.

...but it's so much less satisfying, isn't it?

You know, I could as easily justify calling pro-choice advocates 'pro-abortion' as some of you have justified saying 'anti-choice.' And I know if I did that people would start screaming bloody murder about how I'm slapping labels and being inaccurate and so on. I don't do that though, because I know people find it insulting and it would do NOTHING to improve communication between the sides. When I say 'pro-choice' in referring to my debate opponents, do not take it as an implicit acknowledgment that I'm somehow agreeing that the issue is about choice and nothing more.

(*I hate having to specify over and over that there are exceptions. Most of you guys already know what I mean, so normally I wouldn't have to keep saying it... But you just know if I don't somebody who hasn't read the thread or been paying attention will come waltzing in and demand that I answer for rape cases, etc.)


So, basically the choices you would offer are having the baby or... well, having the baby, right?
Sorry, that's not much of a choice when it comes to your own body.

So, basically the choices you would offer are having the baby or... well, having the baby, right?
Sorry, that's not much of a choice when it comes to your own body.
They're not anti-choice, they're just opposed to you having the right to make choices they don't like. As long as you choose to do what they want you to do, they're all for it.

Ta-da!

They're not anti-choice, they're just opposed to you having the right to make choices they don't like. As long as you choose to do what they want you to do, they're all for it.

Ta-da!

The sad part is that they probably do feel that way and don't see how they are limiting your choice at all.

So, basically the choices you would offer are having the baby or... well, having the baby, right?
Sorry, that's not much of a choice when it comes to your own body.

See, here's the thing... And I mean no offense against you when I say this because it's really meant as a generalization about people who debate from your point of view in general...

There's a lot of jumpming around going on here. Your response sets up a scenario where there are only two possible options, thus making it appear that those who are against abortions are trying to force you into ONE option.

Fine, except that most of the justifications for abortion have to do with all sorts of issues surrounding life circumstances. It's basically an attempt to have it both ways.

There's adoption. It satisfies the need to maintain your lifestyle as it was before as well as avoiding destroying the unborn. It's an option that somehow gets ignored when trying to cast pro-lifers as these wicked fascist control freaks who want to rule your life. So why is it that messing up one's life is a perfectly valid excuse for abortion yet when it comes time to list the available options to the mother suddenly adoption gets swept under the rug in order to misrepresent the position of the pro-life stance?

Wait... I just answered my own question.

Again, that wasn't directed at you personally, Cabra. That was my position on the discussion in general.

heres the thing im getting at:

we all have opinions of when abortion is appropriate. we all have opinions on what constitutes proper sexual behavior. it differs from person to person but we all have lines that we think shouldnt be crossed.

the question is whether or not our opinions should have any force of law. whether our rules are appropriate for everyone, if they could ever be enforced, if enforcing them would make things better or worse, where that line should be drawn.

let me give you an example.

suppose you decide that abortion is only appropriate in the case of rape and incest. what does a woman have to do to PROVE that she was raped? a majority of rapes go unreported to the police and a minority of those ever result in a rape conviction. (not to mention that the conviction would occur long after the baby would have been born)

so if you are to be compassionate, you would have to take a woman at her word if the exception is to have any meaning.

the practical effect--every woman wanting an abortion claims to have been raped. you force a woman to go through the indignity of lying to get a medical procedure. its unworkable.

it used to be that when there was an exception for the health of the mother, a woman would go to a sympathetic doctor and claim that if she had to carry the pregnancy to term she would kill herself. that counted as a danger to her health so she would be given an abortion. maybe it was true, more likely it wasnt.


That's..... that's an excellent point.

:blinks as a rational and damn fine argument finds its way into the thread, and leaves NB speechless in contemplation:


do you REALLY want a baby to be a punishment? do you REALLY want more babies born to women who dont want them and arent fit to be mothers anyway? do you really want pregnancy to be forced on women based on your judgement of how nice they are?

is a girl deciding to have sex such a terrible thing that she must be forced to alter her whole life because of it? would YOU want to be forced to leave school and spend the next few years at home taking care of a baby because YOU had unwise sex? why should a baby be a punishment only for the girl involved? if you would judge yourself a good person, shouldnt you judge her on the same basis?

I just wish you wouldn't call a baby a punishment. I don't agree with this last part but that doesn't take away from what you said above... Your point... damn you for shorting out my deflector shields.

Dammit.

Dammit!

:retreats to think about this one:

I'm aware of that. It just seems odd to me to characterize folks who oppose what they believe is murder as "anti-choice". It's not like we do that for people who oppose assassinations.

I don't personally use the term anti-choice. Mostly it confuses the issue, and we end up getting bogged down in explaining labels rather than actually debating the subject.
I use the terms "anti-choice" and "pro-choice" because they best express what the debate is about for me. I understand that some people would prefer to be called "pro-life," but I am not expressing their views. I am expressing mine, and in my view they are "anti-choice." The only opponents to abortion who concern me are the ones who want to take away my legal right to choose whether to carry a pregnancy or not. So I only care about and oppose the ones that are anti-choice.

That said, I do not bother to "correct" people who refer to themselves as "pro-life," even though I refer to them as "anti-choice." I understand perfectly well what they mean by it, and I understand what I mean by what I say.

In the meantime, though, we have this to consider:

Originally Posted by Neo Bretonnia
I think you'll find that's often done as a response to those who get a kick out of calling them 'anti-choice.'
*lol Sorry, but.... do you see the irony in this?
When I asked you straight out if you wanted to take away the choice women have about abortion or not, you said "yes".
It is my view that "anti-choice" is the correct descriptive for NB's position, regardless of whether he likes it or not.

I'm not asking for the laws to be changed. I would rather have women medically treated in a safe way, and have the option of counselling offered to them, then to have them hurting themselves or seeking an illegal abortion. (and I did find out her name and re-posted, but thankyou :) )
Then I have no argument with you. Every person is entitled to their opinion and beliefs. I only oppose those who seek to impose their opinions/beliefs onto others by changing the law.


<snip>

I don't have the right to hope?

<snip>
If I may, if I had been the recipient of your casual remark, which I'm sure you thought was innocuous, I would be annoyed (and possibly offended) by a certain, maybe subtle aspect of it. Namely, it seemed to ignore or dismiss everything Neesika had just said about her situation and decision and simply say something like, "Well, despite all the circumstances you just described, I still want you to do what I want you to do" -- as if none of the realities she has to cope with matter, as if no part of her decision process matters more than your personal opinion about abortion. Kind of like, she said all of what she said, and you came back with "Yadda-yadda-whatever, I still want you to just do what I say."

I get that that's not how you meant it, but that is how such a remark made in such a context can feel to a person in Neesika's position.

See, here's the thing... And I mean no offense against you when I say this because it's really meant as a generalization about people who debate from your point of view in general...

There's a lot of jumpming around going on here. Your response sets up a scenario where there are only two possible options, thus making it appear that those who are against abortions are trying to force you into ONE option.

These are the two options on debatte, though.
And believe me, there are many many cases in which going through with a pregnancy is just not an option for a woman. It's not always about what to do with the kid once it's born, in many cases it is not an option to see it through until then.
I've been in a situation like that, and I've had friends in situations like that.
When it comes to remaining pregnant or not, there really are only two options. One of which you'd like to criminalise.


Fine, except that most of the justifications for abortion have to do with all sorts of issues surrounding life circumstances. It's basically an attempt to have it both ways.

There is no need to justify an abortion.
Just as there is no need to justify yourself for not getting an organ donation card, or for not going to give blood every month.
A person's body belongs to that person, and only to that person.


There's adoption. It satisfies the need to maintain your lifestyle as it was before as well as avoiding destroying the unborn. It's an option that somehow gets ignored when trying to cast pro-lifers as these wicked fascist control freaks who want to rule your life. So why is it that messing up one's life is a perfectly valid excuse for abortion yet when it comes time to list the available options to the mother suddenly adoption gets swept under the rug in order to misrepresent the position of the pro-life stance?

Wait... I just answered my own question.

Again, that wasn't directed at you personally, Cabra. That was my position on the discussion in general.

I'm not sweeping it under the table. Again, it is an option once the woman has decided to see the pregnancy through. There are cases where it can be an alternative to abortion, but there are also cases where it's not.

I use the terms "anti-choice" and "pro-choice" because they best express what the debate is about for me. I understand that some people would prefer to be called "pro-life," but I am not expressing their views. I am expressing mine, and in my view they are "anti-choice." The only opponents to abortion who concern me are the ones who want to take away my legal right to choose whether to carry a pregnancy or not. So I only care about and oppose the ones that are anti-choice.

That said, I do not bother to "correct" people who refer to themselves as "pro-life," even though I refer to them as "anti-choice." I understand perfectly well what they mean by it, and I understand what I mean by what I say.

Ok. That's an interesting rationalization.

Boy, you all liked that one, didn't you? I can always tell when I hit a nerve.

Let's be clear about something. Pro-life advocates want to remove abortion as an option. Yep. You got me. Gratz.

But no, 'anti-choice' is NOT in the least bit accurate unless you limit your frame of reference to the point of hyperbole.
Self-contradiction for the win!

According to NB, his side of the issue DO want to take away women's right to make a choice about their pregnancy, by taking away a medical option, but that still doesn't mean they are against letting women make choices.

I find jugglers very entertaining to watch, indeed.

A lot of you guys try to pigeonhole every pro-lifer into some tiny little easy to argue against box and any attempt to show that it's not so simple is usually met with a lot of resistance. Hey guys, I'm real sorry we don't fit the cookie-cutter idea that the groupthink crowd likes to paint us as, but I just gotta be me.

There are choices for pregnant women. We just think it's wrong for abortion to be one of them (except in previously noted circumstances*). But guys, that's ONE choice. ONE option. ONE approach to a problem. We see a problem with it.

So to call us 'anti-choice' is inaccurate because it paints the wrong picture... But I don't have to tell you that. You guys know it already.

...but it's so much less satisfying, isn't it?

You know, I could as easily justify calling pro-choice advocates 'pro-abortion' as some of you have justified saying 'anti-choice.' And I know if I did that people would start screaming bloody murder about how I'm slapping labels and being inaccurate and so on. I don't do that though, because I know people find it insulting and it would do NOTHING to improve communication between the sides. When I say 'pro-choice' in referring to my debate opponents, do not take it as an implicit acknowledgment that I'm somehow agreeing that the issue is about choice and nothing more.

(*I hate having to specify over and over that there are exceptions. Most of you guys already know what I mean, so normally I wouldn't have to keep saying it... But you just know if I don't somebody who hasn't read the thread or been paying attention will come waltzing in and demand that I answer for rape cases, etc.)
And here he attempts to justify taking choices away from women by claiming that he's not taking away ALL choices.

It's an amusing but unsuccessful trick because there are ONLY TWO choices in pregnancy -- (1) carry the pregnancy, or (2) abort the pregnancy. You take away one of those options, and you take away ALL of the choice.

These are the two options on debatte, though.

<snip>

Self-contradiction for the win!

<snip>

I'm not ignoring you guys... I'm still working on Ashmoria's point that has done more to cripple my argument than anything else said on this entire thread.

::NB orders damage control teams to the part of the hull that's been hit but it's well below the waterline and the ship is listing hideously to starboard....::

Hmm...a test.I'll think about that,but that's too far even for me!I think how she got pregnant should play a small part.I can't believe I'm actually starting to become a less radical anti-abortionist.I'm scaring myself.
A long time ago, there was a poster -- I can't remember his name, it was something like 2+ years ago -- who actually argued at length in favor of forcing all girls and women between the ages of puberty and menopause to register with the government and have to undergo regular state-monitored (with inspectors!) medical exams to make sure whether they were pregnant at any point, and then have to submit to state controls on their movements to ensure they would not sneak off to abort their pregnancies.

He actually was not kidding. He really thought that was something a society should do, even though he admitted it might not be feasible. It sounds ridiculous, even insane, doesn't it? But if you are going to apply what amounts to a morals test to authorize medical treatment of women -- if you are going to deny them medical care and control over their own bodies according to whether you approve of their behavior or not -- then I am afraid that this kind of dystopian vision is something you cannot avoid. How else will you apply such a "test"? How else will you know that the woman is not simply lying when she tells you how she got pregnant or how she runs her life. After all, she knows what you want to hear and she knows what she has to do to get the medical services she needs, so her motivation to say your "magic words" of morality is very strong, regardless of what her real situation is.

Do you start to see why trying to legislate morality or otherwise control other people's morality is a problem?

By the way, your definition of "floozy" is not something I agree with. I think it is unreasonable and unrealistic, and I further think that the number of sex partners a person has does not in any way reflect on whether they are moral people or not. Do you start to see another problem with applying a morality test to other people's behaviors? Namely, the problem of whose concept of "moral" should hold sway?

I'm not ignoring you guys... I'm still working on Ashmoria's point that has done more to cripple my argument than anything else said on this entire thread.

::NB orders damage control teams to the part of the hull that's been hit but it's well below the waterline and the ship is listing hideously to starboard....::

Hehe... welcome to the dilemma of the German legislators in the late 1980s ;)

I'm not ignoring you guys... I'm still working on Ashmoria's point that has done more to cripple my argument than anything else said on this entire thread.

::NB orders damage control teams to the part of the hull that's been hit but it's well below the waterline and the ship is listing hideously to starboard....::

Neeeeeeeeeerd.

I'm not ignoring you guys... I'm still working on Ashmoria's point that has done more to cripple my argument than anything else said on this entire thread.

::NB orders damage control teams to the part of the hull that's been hit but it's well below the waterline and the ship is listing hideously to starboard....::

I think it's time to scuttle this one, John Paul.

That's..... that's an excellent point.

:blinks as a rational and damn fine argument finds its way into the thread, and leaves NB speechless in contemplation:



I just wish you wouldn't call a baby a punishment. I don't agree with this last part but that doesn't take away from what you said above... Your point... damn you for shorting out my deflector shields.

Dammit.

Dammit!

:retreats to think about this one:

the reason i called a baby a punishment is because of the way he was considering forcing "bad" girls to continue a pregnancy but a "good" girl could have an abortion. that makes a baby a punishment for being a "floozy", doesnt it?

a baby should never be a punishment. it should be a joy and a blessing to your life.

the reason i called a baby a punishment is because of the way he was considering forcing "bad" girls to continue a pregnancy but a "good" girl could have an abortion. that makes a baby a punishment for being a "floozy", doesnt it?

a baby should never be a punishment. it should be a joy and a blessing to your life.

Agreed. And they are :)

Hehe... welcome to the dilemma of the German legislators in the late 1980s ;)

How did they handle it?

Neeeeeeeeeerd.

No, that's not nerdy. THIS is nerdy:

We've lost power on deck 5 through 7 and the Warp Drive is offline! Damage control get the deflector shields up! I need phasers!

I think it's time to scuttle this one, John Paul.

If I'm going to identify with a sea captain I choose Jack Aubrey, thank you...

what?
Can you expand on how abortion leads to kids dying in Africa or not dying in Africa?
Sounds like a slippery slope argument.

he wasnt comparing how they affect each other. he was just sayin people love to bitch

How did they handle it?



They made it illegal, but not punishable.
Cute, isn't it? Illegal, but not punishable...

Their dilemma back then was that since rape, difficult social conditions and medical reasons were exempt, people would use them as loopholes. And those who didn't want to lie went to the Netherlands to have it done.
Pretty much like how Ireland today claims that abortion is illegal, so Irish women go to the UK (real numbers are unknown, but estimates are around 20 000 a year)

See, making abortion illegal will not make it go away. It will not "make women think twice", cause they do that anyway.
It will make women lie, it will put up pointless obstacles, but it will not serve as a deterrent and it will not reduce the number of abortions.

They made it illegal, but not punishable.
Cute, isn't it? Illegal, but not punishable...

Their dilemma back then was that since rape, difficult social conditions and medical reasons were exempt, people would use them as loopholes. And those who didn't want to lie went to the Netherlands to have it done.
Pretty much like how Ireland today claims that abortion is illegal, so Irish women go to the UK (real numbers are unknown, but estimates are around 20 000 a year)

See, making abortion illegal will not make it go away. It will not "make women think twice", cause they do that anyway.
It will make women lie, it will put up pointless obstacles, but it will not serve as a deterrent and it will not reduce the number of abortions.
In the US, banning abortion would certainly increase the economic class divide too, as well as increasing the geographic culture divide between north and south. This would be because women in the northern states and those in other areas who can afford to travel would simply go to Canada for abortions, while those who live too far from Canada to travel there affordably would be forced to use illegal abortion services in their local areas, thus turning the southern poor into criminals only because of their poverty.

I'm having difficulty with the various contradictions in your post:

....As for your assumptions that I would deny her the right to choose. I think you pulled that one out of your ass. I said no such thing... I agree, I don't think you've said this.

No, I don't know anything about her situation. And I wasn't objecting to her having an abortion...I was saying I hope she doesn't have to! This suggests that you are hoping only that I'm not pregnant. Since I've clearly stated I WILL have an abortion if pregnant, the only other interpretation to this is once again, that you don't want me to have an abortion, a position that you claim not to be taking.


I'm not out there glorifying abortion like you...I think its a traumatic procedure.Riiiiight. All the things Bottle posted about how difficult and painful the process of abortion is somehow translates to 'glorificaiton'.


I hope she's not pregnant. And I hope she doesn't have to have an abortion. Once again, what do you mean here? Hoping I'm not pregnant is clear. That would mean I wouldn't have to get an abortion. That's one interpretation of what you've said. However, you wouldn't even need to say the second if the first were true. A second possible interpretation is that you hope I'm not pregnant BUT IF I AM, you hope that I won't 'have to abort'. You would not want me to abort if I am pregnant. To which I would say...what's it to you, and why do you feel the need to express your preference on the matter, then pretend that you haven't?

And for the record, I hope she doesn't have to carry to term a pregnancy she doesn't want.

I am not asking for her right to choose be taken away...I was stating that I hope she doesn't have to choose. Okay, once again suggesting that you simply hope I'm not pregnant and that will be the end of it...but then here:

No, saying I hope she doesn't have an abortion is not judgemental, rude or condescending. It is expressing a hope....I am not wishing anything bad upon her....whether it is an abortion or an unwanted pregnancy. And my 'hope' was good natured. You aren't stating that you hope I am not pregnant. You are expressing a hope that I don't have an abortion IF I AM PREGNANT. This goes against a number of your statements in which you suggest you were talking about pregnancy and not abortion. So please, clarify. Which is it? Because once again...


What I was saying is that I hope she's not pregnant, and I hope she doesn't have to make the decisions surrounding that. You've linked the two ideas...pregnancy and abortion, instead of just talking about pregnancy. So first you don't want me to be pregnant, fine, but if I am, you don't want me to have to choose? Well of course I'd have to choose...to carry to term or not. There is no middle ground, there is no frozen 'I just don't know'...and I can't imagine that you'd actually want me NOT to make a choice. Instead, what you want is for me not to make a particular choice.


But honestly, if she didn't want to be critised (and I have not done so) then why come to a public forum, where there is passionate debate between pro-life and pro-choice...and say HEY I'm going to have an abortion! In the kindest way possible, what did she expect? Oddly, no one has said anything negative about it on this very passionate forum...the only person who so far has said anything suggesting that perhaps I should use someone else's criteria to choose has been you. Although you've said you didn't mean it that way, despite having confirmed it a number of times.

As I've said, I'm not particularly offended by your well wishing. I only want you to be honest with yourself (and us) about what you are wishing FOR, and what the motivation for that particular wish is. Denying you meant to say you don't want me to have an abortion by claiming it was phrased only as a 'hope', or claiming you only meant I wasn't pregnant, hasn't seemed to fit with the rest of your statements. If you learn nothing else during your time here, I hope that you are able to reflect a bit upon your own biases in an honest manner. Trust me...over three years here and I've been slapped upside the head over 'innocuous' comments more times than I can count, and it's almost always been for the better.



I don't have the right to hope? Do it honestly. What exactly are you hoping for?


I'm not asking you to make a different decision to the one you've made. That was never my intention. I only wished you well. And I'm very sorry if you were offended by that. I don't want you to be pregnant against your wishes. I don't want you to have to have an abortion, because its not a nice thing to go through. I was simply hoping that everything would be okay, and you wouldn't be in a position where you'd have to choose. Thats all :( I don't want to have an abortion either for the reasons you've mentioned, but it's the outcome of a pregnancy right now...


Not wishing to sway you from anything. And to be honest, I don't know why you posted the fact you've decided to have an abortion, on a thread debating whether abortion is ethical...and expect someone not to have challenged it.
So now you are challenging it? Seriously, can you read through this post and NOT see why we don't believe that you just meant 'I hope you aren't pregnant'? Because so far, no one else has challenged anything.

The thing is, a challenge is fine. Someone would give reasons why I shouldn't abort, and I would debate those reasons. But you haven't done that. You phrased your challenge as 'hope', which doesn't need reasons. There is nothing for me to debate. I have been trying to pull your reasons out so I could actually address them, but you have been focused on pretending you have no reasons. IT'S OKAY TO HAVE REASONS! I just want you to be honest about them. Being pro-choice doesn't mean you have to stick with absolutes...you can still think that it's not the greatest choice to make in a particular situation, even while you support that choice. If someone jumps down your throat and says, 'You're not really pro-choice then', well fuck, who cares? I don't have to like Nazi propaganda in order to support free speech.

So don't hide behind 'hope'. Come out and say what you mean. And if you don't yet know what you mean, that's okay too. Just don't tell us we've got you all wrong when it's been YOU sending out the very mixed signals.


Why tell a bunch of 'complete strangers' about your personal choices? If you weren't allowing for those personal choices to be included in the debate?I wasn't delibrately trying to offend you...I only wish you the best...
Again...if you want to debate my choice, that's perfectly okay, but you actually have to have a point to make. Wanna try?

When I first read her remark, it struck me as being either:

-- She wants you not to abort because she would rather you just conform to her point of view without any other consideration taken into account; or

-- She just said she hoped you wouldn't abort because she didn't bother to actually read what you had written and did not know that your decision is already made, and she just says that sentence as a kind of knee jerk auto-line, like "Have a nice day" or "Get well soon" or something.

So, I read it as either selfishness or thoughtlessness, but rather shallow in either case.I suspect the latter, but numerous non-clarifications after the fact have caused me to wonder.

Agreed. And they are :)

What...always? I doubt even you believe that a baby is ALWAYS a joy and a blessing.

Your wife just gave birth to someone else's child. JOY AND BLESSINGS UPON YOU! :P

What...always? I doubt even you believe that a baby is ALWAYS a joy and a blessing.

Your wife just gave birth to someone else's child. JOY AND BLESSINGS UPON YOU! :P

Now you're just trying to pick a fight.

They made it illegal, but not punishable.
Cute, isn't it? Illegal, but not punishable...


I wonder who that compromise was supposed to satisfy...

Now you're just trying to pick a fight.

No, I'm cautioning you to not make untenable absolute statements. Children are not always a blessing and a joy, and I can provide MANY examples of this. Abortion should not be informed by foolish notions about the inherent wonderfulness of children.

No, I'm cautioning you to not make untenable absolute statements. Children are not always a blessing and a joy, and I can provide MANY examples of this. Abortion should not be informed by foolish notions about the inherent wonderfulness of children.

No, you're picking a fight. This exchange wasn't even about you or your situation. This is what I said within the context of why I said it.


the reason i called a baby a punishment is because of the way he was considering forcing "bad" girls to continue a pregnancy but a "good" girl could have an abortion. that makes a baby a punishment for being a "floozy", doesnt it?

a baby should never be a punishment. it should be a joy and a blessing to your life.

Agreed. And they are :)

The only absolute presented here (and agreed with) is that a baby should never be a punishment. You're distorting what I'm saying.

No, you're picking a fight. This exchange wasn't even about you or your situation. This is what I said within the context of why I said it.



The only absolute presented here (and agreed with) is that a baby should never be a punishment. You're distorting what I'm saying.

You agree that they shouldn't be punishment, then go on to say "And they are" to the statement that children should be a joy and a blessing to your life.

Seriously people, do you not even understand the grammatical meaning of your own words? You made no qualifications, you stated, absolutely that children ARE a joy and a blessing to your life, not that they should be or could be or might be.

Sheesh.

You agree that they shouldn't be punishment, then go on to say "And they are" to the statement that children should be a joy and a blessing to your life.

Seriously people, do you not even understand the grammatical meaning of your own words? You made no qualifications, you stated, absolutely that children ARE a joy and a blessing to your life, not that they should be or could be or might be.

Sheesh.

You want me to say "Yes, Neesika, you're right. I had no idea I was saying such a hideous and awful thing. I sure didn't mean to, but thanks to your wisdom I now see the light."

Not that it would help if I did, would it? Piu apologized to you (Not that I think you were entitled to it, considering it was just a simple misunderstanding) and you guys haven't slowed a bit in ripping her to shreds over an innocuous coment.

And it was innocuous. You can go on all the live long day about how you can distort it into something awful and shallow and all that, but ultimately you're wrong. You have somebody who philosophically agrees with you and you still feel some sick need to rip them to pieces over a NON-ISSUE.

And now you want to do it to me. Pffft. Go ahead. I'm not gonna apologize all over myself or admit to saying something I didn't just to appease you when you're being unreasonable.

I would take the exchange "Babies should be a blessing and joy in your life" -- "And they are" to mean only that the babies in Neo's life are, indeed, a blessing and joy in his life. Neesika, you're getting to the point where you're hunting for insulting intent where it may not be present.

I would take the exchange "Babies should be a blessing and joy in your life" -- "And they are" to mean only that the babies in Neo's life are, indeed, a blessing and joy in his life. Neesika, you're getting to the point where you're hunting for insulting intent where it may not be present.

I wish I had the ability to put things as succinctly as that. ;)

I would take the exchange "Babies should be a blessing and joy in your life" -- "And they are" to mean only that the babies in Neo's life are, indeed, a blessing and joy in his life. Neesika, you're getting to the point where you're hunting for insulting intent where it may not be present.

Yeah, it seemed like a statement about his personal situation, not a general statement about every child.

I wish I had the ability to put things as succinctly as that. ;)

There are far too many people on NSG who suffer from an inability to be brief.

"This forum requires that you wait 30 seconds between posts. Please try again in 4 seconds." :mad:

Boy, you all liked that one, didn't you? I can always tell when I hit a nerve.

Let's be clear about something. Pro-life advocates want to remove abortion as an option. Yep. You got me. Gratz.

But no, 'anti-choice' is NOT in the least bit accurate unless you limit your frame of reference to the point of hyperbole.

A lot of you guys try to pigeonhole every pro-lifer into some tiny little easy to argue against box and any attempt to show that it's not so simple is usually met with a lot of resistance. Hey guys, I'm real sorry we don't fit the cookie-cutter idea that the groupthink crowd likes to paint us as, but I just gotta be me.

There are choices for pregnant women. We just think it's wrong for abortion to be one of them (except in previously noted circumstances*). But guys, that's ONE choice. ONE option. ONE approach to a problem. We see a problem with it.

So to call us 'anti-choice' is inaccurate because it paints the wrong picture... But I don't have to tell you that. You guys know it already.

...but it's so much less satisfying, isn't it?

You know, I could as easily justify calling pro-choice advocates 'pro-abortion' as some of you have justified saying 'anti-choice.' And I know if I did that people would start screaming bloody murder about how I'm slapping labels and being inaccurate and so on. I don't do that though, because I know people find it insulting and it would do NOTHING to improve communication between the sides. When I say 'pro-choice' in referring to my debate opponents, do not take it as an implicit acknowledgment that I'm somehow agreeing that the issue is about choice and nothing more.

(*I hate having to specify over and over that there are exceptions. Most of you guys already know what I mean, so normally I wouldn't have to keep saying it... But you just know if I don't somebody who hasn't read the thread or been paying attention will come waltzing in and demand that I answer for rape cases, etc.)

1. Earlier in this thread you accused me of assuming that anyone who disagreed with me must not understand my argument. Now you are doing exactly that. I and others here understand the "pro-life" argument well. We just don't agree with it. We find it flawed in multiple ways. We will continue to criticize it. Learn to deal with it.

2. Whether you like the label or not, your view is accurately labeled "anti-choice." Calling your position "pro-life" or "anti-abortion" mislabels the position of that significant group of people (who may even be a plurality) who believe abortion is wrong but nonetheless respect the right of a woman to choose. Such people are every bit as "pro-life" or "anti-abortion" as you, they just also are "pro-choice" while you are "anti-choice."

3. What are these multiple choices you seem to imply a woman who has an unwanted pregnancy would be afforded if your view became law? You may claim it "paints the wrong picture," but it seems rather clear the only choice you would allow her is to carry the pregnancy to birth. That doesn't actually allow her any choice about continuing her pregnancy. So you can kick your feet about "cookie-cutter" "groupthink" and how the issue is "complicated," but the bottom line is that you would deprive a woman of choice and control over her own body.

4. While you complain about "groupthink" you keep ignoring the fact that most of us who are pro-choice are already offering to compromise with your view in many ways. Most of agree that late-term abortion should generally be illegal. Almost all abortions occur in the first trimester. We also agree that abortion should be made as rare as possible -- promoting birth control, family planning, etc. We also promote free pre-natal and post-natal care and income assistance to relieve pressures that may cause a woman to feel the need to abort unnecessarily. We agree that abortion should be regulated to ensure it is as safe as possible. The only thing we won't consider is depriving a woman of control over her own body and banning abortion early in the pregnancy. What exactly is the compromise you suggest?

1. Earlier in this thread you accused me of assuming that anyone who disagreed with me must not understand my argument. Now you are doing exactly that. I and others here understand the "pro-life" argument well. We just don't agree with it. We find it flawed in multiple ways. We will continue to criticize it. Learn to deal with it.

2. Whether you like the label or not, your view is accurately labeled "anti-choice." Calling your position "pro-life" or "anti-abortion" mislabels the position of that significant group of people (who may even be a plurality) who believe abortion is wrong but nonetheless respect the right of a woman to choose. Such people are every bit as "pro-life" or "anti-abortion" as you, they just also are "pro-choice" while you are "anti-choice."

3. What are these multiple choices you seem to imply a woman who has an unwanted pregnancy would be afforded if your view became law? You may claim it "paints the wrong picture," but it seems rather clear the only choice you would allow her is to carry the pregnancy to birth. That doesn't actually allow her any choice about continuing her pregnancy. So you can kick your feet about "cookie-cutter" "groupthink" and how the issue is "complicated," but the bottom line is that you would deprive a woman of choices and control over her own body.

Your points are understood, but for now I'll refrain from replying for two reasons.

1)I'm re-evaluating my position as a result of Ashmoria's torpedo and
2)Our arguments on some of those are becoming repetitious anyway ;)

You want me to say "Yes, Neesika, you're right. I had no idea I was saying such a hideous and awful thing. I sure didn't mean to, but thanks to your wisdom I now see the light."

Not that it would help if I did, would it? Piu apologized to you (Not that I think you were entitled to it, considering it was just a simple misunderstanding) and you guys haven't slowed a bit in ripping her to shreds over an innocuous coment.

And it was innocuous. You can go on all the live long day about how you can distort it into something awful and shallow and all that, but ultimately you're wrong. You have somebody who philosophically agrees with you and you still feel some sick need to rip them to pieces over a NON-ISSUE.

And now you want to do it to me. Pffft. Go ahead. I'm not gonna apologize all over myself or admit to saying something I didn't just to appease you when you're being unreasonable.

All you had to do Bret, was say...'you know, it's true, children aren't always a joy and a blessing, but whatever'. Maybe you did in fact mean only your kids, or just wanted to express a nice little sentiment. Instead, you said that I was starting a fight with you. Mostly my response after that was tongue-in-cheek, you missed it, that's fine...but it was also half serious in that I can't stand trite little sayings like 'children are a joy and a blessing'. At least Ashmoria phrased it as a 'should be' with which I think we can all agree. Stupid, trite pat phrases in the context of an abortion debate need to be treated like stupid, trite pat phrases that lack meaning or use. Especially when expressed as a sentiment from someone with an anti-choice agenda. It's a collary to the idea that, 'it's okay little girl, eventually, after being forced to give birth to a baby you didn't want, you'll realise it was actually a joy and a blessing'.

I may be semi-tongue-in-cheek badgering both you and Piu, but yeah, I think you need to examine your storage bin of pat, trite phrases, and not just dismiss them as shallow, or not a big deal etc. I'm not picking fights because I'm all up in arms and offended and frothing at the mouth. I'm picking fights because I want you to think about what you say and WHY you say it. If that's honestly too much for you, well okay then. I think it's an interesting subject (how language relates to beliefs and visa versa), but it takes a certain amount of intellectual honesty to ask yourself what you actually meant, and I certainly can't force you to engage in that process.

I don't care about Piu's 'apology'. I'm more interested in what she REALLY thinks. Ditto with you, smartass.

I would take the exchange "Babies should be a blessing and joy in your life" -- "And they are" to mean only that the babies in Neo's life are, indeed, a blessing and joy in his life. Neesika, you're getting to the point where you're hunting for insulting intent where it may not be present.

I'm not hunting for insulting intent, I'm hunting for people's real motivations, which generally are not insulting on the surface (or even perhaps below the surface).

I'm not hunting for insulting intent, I'm hunting for people's real motivations, which generally are not insulting on the surface (or even perhaps below the surface).

I don't quite understand why you think that people are going to lie about their real motivations on an internet forum. Certainly, the number of people who are quite willing to express fascist or overtly racist views more readily here than IRL would suggest that people are quite willing to express those sorts of motivations given relative anonymity.

And people who have plenty of experience debating the issue of abortion are much less likely to be deluding themselves. And if they are able to delude themselves after all that, your barbs aren't likely to get through.

I don't quite understand why you think that people are going to lie about their real motivations on an internet forum. Is it a lie if you don't understand your own motivations?

There are plenty of opinions we express on a daily basis that we might not have actually thought through. I understand that, for example, in Piu's case, she was well wishing me. That was the underlying intent. A sort of 'well, hope that all works out'. When challenged, she seemed confused because it was being suggested that perhaps her intent was something else. So she had to think about what her position was again. What came out was even more confusing, because it seemed to go from one side to another. I think that's interesting...not in a 'ha! Caught you lying' sort of way, but rather in a more in depth than 'I'm pro-choice' way.

The abortion debates, endless as they are, tend to be incredibly lacking in depth. You're either pro-choice or pro-life, or whatever derogatory term the other side wants to label you as. So to choose a side, there's been some thought put into it...do I support the woman's autonomy to choose, or do I believe the concerns of the unborn are paramount. Okay, great, first step taken, you are on a 'side'.

But what comes after that? So you're pro-choice...does that really mean you don't think that some women having abortions are silly gits, or that having abortions to choose the gender of a child is abhorant, etc? Sure, you aren't going to suggest that we should force these women to have the baby, but it doesn't mean we agree necessarily with the other pro-choice person who thinks that these considerations don't matter at all.

There is a difference between not agreeing with someone's motivations, and trying to stop them. You can say, 'I support your right to choose' AND say, 'but I think you've made a bad decision for x, y and z reasons'. But people rarely do that within the context of the abortion debate because it's so ridiculously polarised. I suspect, and what I was trying to dig into, is that Piu, like many people, have certain personal criteria for abortion that they would not try to force onto other people, and yet that nonetheless end up expressed in some way. I'm just wondering if she knows what those criteria are, or if she hasn't really examined them for fear of being labelled not really pro-choice.

Way to blow my cover HotRodia:P

Certainly, the number of people who are quite willing to express fascist or overtly racist views more readily here than IRL would suggest that people are quite willing to express those sorts of motivations given relative anonymity. Meh, still...a lot of those views are shallow and not well examined. Uninteresting.


And people who have plenty of experience debating the issue of abortion are much less likely to be deluding themselves. And if they are able to delude themselves after all that, your barbs aren't likely to get through.
Oh I disagree. I think plenty of people are able to delude themselves when it comes to the big trigger issues, abortion, capital punishment, etc. Because we might think about it on a large level, and see how our personal beliefs fit, but I don't think that most people really delve into the issue to find their own personal contradictions. Those contradictions don't necessarily invalidate the position someone has taken...but they are interesting.

Is it a lie if you don't understand your own motivations?

No, but I have a different take on why self-delusion is unlikely to be the problem in this case.

The abortion debates, endless as they are, tend to be incredibly lacking in depth. You're either pro-choice or pro-life, or whatever derogatory term the other side wants to label you as.

<snipped for brevity>

I'm just wondering if she knows what those criteria are, or if she hasn't really examined them for fear of being labelled not really pro-choice.

Ok. Why do you think the approach you took is likely to actually make her examine the issue more fully?

Way to blow my cover HotRodia:P

All I did was try to find out your real motivations. ;)

Oh I disagree. I think plenty of people are able to delude themselves when it comes to the big trigger issues, abortion, capital punishment, etc. Because we might think about it on a large level, and see how our personal beliefs fit, but I don't think that most people really delve into the issue to find their own personal contradictions. Those contradictions don't necessarily invalidate the position someone has taken...but they are interesting.

Sure plenty of people are able to delude themselves about their motivations. As I mentioned, it's just much more difficult for people who have plenty of experience in the abortion debate. It's harder to hold on to those delusions when your views are being challenged, though I'll admit that some aggressive debate styles probably just make them cling to their delusions all the more tightly.

Ok. Why do you think the approach you took is likely to actually make her examine the issue more fully? Because if a person can't examine their beliefs under fire, it's a boring conversation.

All I did was try to find out your real motivations. ;) I see what you did there.


Sure plenty of people are able to delude themselves about their motivations. As I mentioned, it's just much more difficult for people who have plenty of experience in the abortion debate.
Experience does not necessarily mean depth. Plenty of people here harp on the same topics again and again with no more analysis than the first time they did.

It's harder to hold on to those delusions when your views are being challenged, though I'll admit that some aggressive debate styles probably just make them cling to their delusions all the more tightly.
I want to know what the delusions are, ESPECIALLY in the people who don't think they are holding any. The obvious defects in a person's argument are less fun to find.

The thing is, we all have our biases. Sometimes we only realise it in the context of being challenged. Inconsistencies interest me, because they indicate a lack of certainty...as to what, I can't always be sure. But when you go after those inconsistencies, people often feel as though you are threatening their overall position. Piu assumed we belived she was actually prolife. That was never the issue.

Besides, everyone lies. Some people just don't realise they're doing it.

All you had to do Bret, was say...'you know, it's true, children aren't always a joy and a blessing, but whatever'. Maybe you did in fact mean only your kids, or just wanted to express a nice little sentiment. Instead, you said that I was starting a fight with you. Mostly my response after that was tongue-in-cheek, you missed it, that's fine...but it was also half serious in that I can't stand trite little sayings like 'children are a joy and a blessing'. At least Ashmoria phrased it as a 'should be' with which I think we can all agree. Stupid, trite pat phrases in the context of an abortion debate need to be treated like stupid, trite pat phrases that lack meaning or use. Especially when expressed as a sentiment from someone with an anti-choice agenda. It's a collary to the idea that, 'it's okay little girl, eventually, after being forced to give birth to a baby you didn't want, you'll realise it was actually a joy and a blessing'.

I may be semi-tongue-in-cheek badgering both you and Piu, but yeah, I think you need to examine your storage bin of pat, trite phrases, and not just dismiss them as shallow, or not a big deal etc. I'm not picking fights because I'm all up in arms and offended and frothing at the mouth. I'm picking fights because I want you to think about what you say and WHY you say it. If that's honestly too much for you, well okay then. I think it's an interesting subject (how language relates to beliefs and visa versa), but it takes a certain amount of intellectual honesty to ask yourself what you actually meant, and I certainly can't force you to engage in that process.

I don't care about Piu's 'apology'. I'm more interested in what she REALLY thinks. Ditto with you, smartass.

When you say 'smartass' I'll take it as if you said it with a smile. :D

In which case my response would be something to the tune of 'damn straight!'

I think a lot of this gets back to what I said about a million pages ago where it's very difficult to communicate in a medium like this. In case you didn't get a chance to read what I had said, it was basically about how I once read that 80% of communication between people is body language and tone, and only 20% is the actual words. On here, we're all operating at 20% of our normal ability to express ourselves at best, so it's VERY easy to be misunderstood, especially when we're writing in a hurry (as Piu indicated she was), when we're being semi-tongue in cheek (as you indicated you were) or even if we're talking about or own perspective vs. a general one (as I was.)

Which is why on some level we've got to give each other the benefit of the doubt and cut a little slack around here if communication is really the main objective. You said you like to analyze what people say for contradictions... That being the case, you should see this more clearly than most. I'd daresay alot of contradictions come from that very phenomenon, where what the person is trying to convey is being limited to th at 20% window and may come across as completely different from what was meant.

So, that being the case, I propose that we let this one go. (Including the Piu thing)

When you say 'smartass' I'll take it as if you said it with a smile. :D I did.

In which case my response would be something to the tune of 'damn straight!'

I think a lot of this gets back to what I said about a million pages ago where it's very difficult to communicate in a medium like this. In case you didn't get a chance to read what I had said, it was basically about how I once read that 80% of communication between people is body language and tone, and only 20% is the actual words. On here, we're all operating at 20% of our normal ability to express ourselves at best, so it's VERY easy to be misunderstood, especially when we're writing in a hurry (as Piu indicated she was), when we're being semi-tongue in cheek (as you indicated you were) or even if we're talking about or own perspective vs. a general one (as I was.)
Ah but even if we were communicating face to face, taking body language into account, that STILL wouldn't make things easier. In fact...I suspect it would make things more difficult. If, for example, someone said, 'I hope you don't have an abortion' and you could read from their body language that they were uncomfortable somehow, or 'off', not exhibiting the 'well wishing' body language, you might challenge them on that...but on what basis? The person would still say, 'well I meant what I said, not what you think my body language said'. Especially if the person was a stranger and you haven't yet learned to 'read' them.

Which is why on some level we've got to give each other the benefit of the doubt and cut a little slack around here if communication is really the main objective. You said you like to analyze what people say for contradictions... That being the case, you should see this more clearly than most. I'd daresay alot of contradictions come from that very phenomenon, where what the person is trying to convey is being limited to th at 20% window and may come across as completely different from what was meant.

So, that being the case, I propose that we let this one go. (Including the Piu thing)
Bah, lame! Yes we can cut people slack, let them off the hook and all that...fine...it's perfectly within your power to ignore your biases, or refuse to analyse your assumptions, or avoid the challenges of others. It's much more worthwhile to actually sit and think and say, 'hmmm....what WAS I thinking there? What do I actually feel about this?'

I don't think the contradictions came from an inability to see body language or hear tone of voice. I think the contradictions are an expression of the contradictions. Piu had the chance to clarify and did a terrible job at it. That can absolutely be the end of it. There's the slack.

The only reason things remain assumptions is because they aren't examined.

Because if a person can't examine their beliefs under fire, it's a boring conversation.

I find that if there's too much fire, there's often no longer a conversation at all. For me, no real conversation is even more boring and less useful than a dull conversation.

Experience does not necessarily mean depth. Plenty of people here harp on the same topics again and again with no more analysis than the first time they did.

This is a fair point. I've certainly seen that in the context of abortion debates being done over and over around here for the past 4+ years.

I want to know what the delusions are, ESPECIALLY in the people who don't think they are holding any. The obvious defects in a person's argument are less fun to find.

The thing is, we all have our biases. Sometimes we only realise it in the context of being challenged. Inconsistencies interest me, because they indicate a lack of certainty...as to what, I can't always be sure. But when you go after those inconsistencies, people often feel as though you are threatening their overall position. Piu assumed we belived she was actually prolife. That was never the issue.

Perhaps. But it certainly looked like that was the issue.

Besides, everyone lies. Some people just don't realise they're doing it.

Of course. The person willing to lie to others often has no qualms about lying to himself or herself.

I find that if there's too much fire, there's often no longer a conversation at all. For me, no real conversation is even more boring and less useful than a dull conversation.
This is a fair point. I've certainly seen that in the context of abortion debates being done over and over around here for the past 4+ years.
Perhaps. But it certainly looked like that was the issue.
Of course. The person willing to lie to others often has no qualms about lying to himself or herself.

How do you lie to yourself? I don't understand, unless you have a split personallity i'm not sure how you can do that. Do you mean convince yourself that something is true inspite of all evidence against it?

I find that if there's too much fire, there's often no longer a conversation at all. For me, no real conversation is even more boring and less useful than a dull conversation. True, it's a fine balance, but I like how people react under pressure. If they give up, that tells you something. If they fight back, but without analysis, THAT tells you something. If they fight back reasonably, address the concerns brought up, and don't take any shit, that tells you something.


This is a fair point. I've certainly seen that in the context of abortion debates being done over and over around here for the past 4+ years.Or the religion threads, or the capital punishment threads or the blah blah blah.

Yeah.


Perhaps. But it certainly looked like that was the issue. I explicitly made reference to knowing that was not the case. I can't accept responsibility for that being missed. It was never about believing she wanted to take my choice from me...rather it was about what her real thoughts on the matter were, within a pro-choice platform.


Of course. The person willing to lie to others often has no qualms about lying to himself or herself.
More troublesome is the person who isn't necessarily lying...but rather, simply hasn't actually analysed their position that well. It's easy to say, 'I believe this'....it's much less common to say, 'wow, in this situation, I'm not sure I'd feel great about maintaining my position...would I continue to do so, or not, and why'. Generally when people get personally offended about being probed (and I don't mean anally), it's because they have a weak foundation. I'm that way with religion. Don't know squat about it, have very broad, shallow positions in regards to religion, and carry around probably thousands of contradictory views on the subject. The difference is...I KNOW that I lack that foundation, so I don't take it personally when religious debates get heated.

How do you lie to yourself? I don't understand, unless you have a split personallity i'm not sure how you can do that. Do you mean convince yourself that something is true inspite of all evidence against it?

To make a long story short, lies come in a lot of forms, some of them easier to perform than others. Which is not to say that some people don't have the ability to lie to themselves the hard way.

Lies of omission, for example. In the case of abortion, all a person has to do to commit a lie of omission against himself or herself is to refrain from looking at the medical evidence and/or the statistical evidence.

How do you lie to yourself? I don't understand, unless you have a split personallity i'm not sure how you can do that. Do you mean convince yourself that something is true inspite of all evidence against it?

One example is saying, "I'm not racist" even though you actually do hold bigoted opinions about people of other ethnicities. You might not actually consider your opinions to be racist in nature. That's lying to yourself. You might not realise that however, until you actually LOOK at those opinions critically.

I wonder who that compromise was supposed to satisfy...

Mostly the public health insurances.
Making it legal would have meant that they might have ended up paying for abortions. As it is, they can't.
As everybody in Germany has to have health insurance, they would have faced some serious costs there.

*puts £50 sunglasses back on*



Wow, those are heavy sunglasses!

(It's a pun, get it?)

:D

True, it's a fine balance, but I like how people react under pressure. If they give up, that tells you something. If they fight back, but without analysis, THAT tells you something. If they fight back reasonably, address the concerns brought up, and don't take any shit, that tells you something.

I explicitly made reference to knowing that was not the case. I can't accept responsibility for that being missed. It was never about believing she wanted to take my choice from me...rather it was about what her real thoughts on the matter were, within a pro-choice platform.

Well, as long as you know what your real motivations are. I still don't think that the way you go about challenging the beliefs of others is as effective as it could be, but c'est la vie.

More troublesome is the person who isn't necessarily lying...but rather, simply hasn't actually analysed their position that well. It's easy to say, 'I believe this'....it's much less common to say, 'wow, in this situation, I'm not sure I'd feel great about maintaining my position...would I continue to do so, or not, and why'. Generally when people get personally offended about being probed (and I don't mean anally), it's because they have a weak foundation. I'm that way with religion. Don't know squat about it, have very broad, shallow positions in regards to religion, and carry around probably thousands of contradictory views on the subject. The difference is...I KNOW that I lack that foundation, so I don't take it personally when religious debates get heated.

Well I'm glad you're so self-aware and self-reflective. I'm just not sure why it's so troubling that not everyone is like you in that respect.

Well I'm glad you're so self-aware and self-reflective. I'm just not sure why it's so troubling that not everyone is like you in that respect.

Bah, you miss the point. It doesn't trouble me, it interests me. And just because I know my faults when it comes to issues I don't care much about (religion) doesn't mean I know my faults when it comes to issues I care very deeply about (aboriginal issues for example).

If it was all c'est la vie, cut some slack, ignore the contradictions then I'd never be challenged to face my own assumptions either.

Sheesh people!

To make a long story short, lies come in a lot of forms, some of them easier to perform than others. Which is not to say that some people don't have the ability to lie to themselves the hard way.

Lies of omission, for example. In the case of abortion, all a person has to do to commit a lie of omission against himself or herself is to refrain from looking at the medical evidence and/or the statistical evidence.
Okay i understand the basic lies, but how do you lie to yourself the hard way? Is that the equivelent to making heated arguments then contradicting yourself on some of the points?
Or is that when you argue your point constantly even though you know you're wrong, you just want the other person to lose out.

One example is saying, "I'm not racist" even though you actually do hold bigoted opinions about people of other ethnicities. You might not actually consider your opinions to be racist in nature. That's lying to yourself. You might not realise that however, until you actually LOOK at those opinions critically.

Seems to make sense.
What about things that aren't so certain, e.g. you hope to pass a test but you know you haven't done enough revision to pass it. does that mean that in some cases hope is a lie?

It looks like some lies are blatantly obvious, but other types of human inductive reasoning are based on false premises so they could be considered lies too. Where other lies aren't.

Bah, you miss the point. It doesn't trouble me, it interests me. And just because I know my faults when it comes to issues I don't care much about (religion) doesn't mean I know my faults when it comes to issues I care very deeply about (aboriginal issues for example).

If it was all c'est la vie, cut some slack, ignore the contradictions then I'd never be challenged to face my own assumptions either.

Sheesh people!

It's your own fault for using the word "troublesome". Haha! I caught you in a contradiction!

*does victory dance*

But joking aside, I don't think anyone here is entirely of the "c'est la vie, cut some slack, ignore the contradictions" school of thought. Perhaps we just don't think that the "bomb them into submission" is a good tactic for every situation.

Maybe we think that for much the same reasons that we don't think "carry it to term" is the best response to every pregnancy.

I did.

Then... Damn straight! :D


Ah but even if we were communicating face to face, taking body language into account, that STILL wouldn't make things easier. In fact...I suspect it would make things more difficult. If, for example, someone said, 'I hope you don't have an abortion' and you could read from their body language that they were uncomfortable somehow, or 'off', not exhibiting the 'well wishing' body language, you might challenge them on that...but on what basis? The person would still say, 'well I meant what I said, not what you think my body language said'. Especially if the person was a stranger and you haven't yet learned to 'read' them.

IMHO that's all the more reason to give the benefit of the doubt at first. Later, when you know how to read that person, you can make a much more informed judgement when making an interpretation.


Bah, lame! Yes we can cut people slack, let them off the hook and all that...fine...it's perfectly within your power to ignore your biases, or refuse to analyse your assumptions, or avoid the challenges of others. It's much more worthwhile to actually sit and think and say, 'hmmm....what WAS I thinking there? What do I actually feel about this?'


Well don't get me wrong... I'm not suggesting that someone who is OBVIOUSLY lying or being inconsistent should be let off the hook. I'm only saying that we need to account for the imprecise nature of this medium of communication, especially because we don't know each other. Even if you and I post back and forth for years we still wouldn't truly know each other a tenth as well as someone who has worked with you in the same office for a month.


I don't think the contradictions came from an inability to see body language or hear tone of voice. I think the contradictions are an expression of the contradictions. Piu had the chance to clarify and did a terrible job at it. That can absolutely be the end of it. There's the slack.

The only reason things remain assumptions is because they aren't examined.

I see what you're saying, but I think a caveat to go with it is to be careful about making a judgement too quickly or with some degree of predjudice (based perhaps on past dealings with that individual.)

I'm very pro-abortion.

Although, abortions are pretty stupid because you could just wear a condom or use the pill but since that's just crazy talk, abortions should definately be legal.

Although, abortions are pretty stupid because you could just wear a condom or use the pill but since that's just crazy talk, abortions should definately be legal.

Are you under the impression that anyone that is pro-choice is anti-birth-control?

On the other hand, a significant portion of anti-choicers are also anti-birth-control.

You might think on the following information:

CONTRACEPTIVE USE
• Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.[9]

• Forty-six percent of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Of these women, 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy, 32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods, 26% had had unexpected sex and 1% had been forced to have sex.[9]

• Eight percent of women who have abortions have never used a method of birth control; nonuse is greatest among those who are young, poor, black, Hispanic or less educated.[9]

• About half of unintended pregnancies occur among the 11% of women who are at risk for unintended pregnancy but are not using contraceptives. Most of these women have practiced contraception in the past.[1,10]

link (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html)

I'm very pro-abortion.

Although, abortions are pretty stupid because you could just wear a condom or use the pill but since that's just crazy talk, abortions should definately be legal.

do you know anyone who uses abortion as a primary form of birth control?

me either.

Mostly the public health insurances.
Making it legal would have meant that they might have ended up paying for abortions. As it is, they can't.
As everybody in Germany has to have health insurance, they would have faced some serious costs there.

Hmm... interesting.

do you know anyone who uses abortion as a primary form of birth control?

me either.

Wow.

Lose.

Are you under the impression that anyone that is pro-choice is anti-birth-control?

On the other hand, a significant portion of anti-choicers are also anti-birth-control.

You might think on the following information:

CONTRACEPTIVE USE
• Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.[9]

• Forty-six percent of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Of these women, 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy, 32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods, 26% had had unexpected sex and 1% had been forced to have sex.[9]

• Eight percent of women who have abortions have never used a method of birth control; nonuse is greatest among those who are young, poor, black, Hispanic or less educated.[9]

• About half of unintended pregnancies occur among the 11% of women who are at risk for unintended pregnancy but are not using contraceptives. Most of these women have practiced contraception in the past.[1,10]

link (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html)

"while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use"

So only 13 percent of women who use the pill and 14 percent who use the condom use them "correctly?"

"Had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy"

I don't really expect to get in a car crash but I wear my seatbelt anyway.

"Had had concerns about contraceptive methods"

...Really?

I'm having trouble understanding the numbers... So 54 percent use condoms and pills but only 27 percent use them correctly? And then 45 percent just didn't use them?

So from what I can gather, the only people who really have an excuse for getting an abortion were the one percent who were raped, and the eight percent who don't know any better.

So... 91 percent of women who received abortions quite simply did not use contraceptives but had the choice.

Well, you just can't fix stupid.

Well, you just can't fix stupid.
And if there's one thing this world needs, it's more stupid people being forced to produce children!

I don't really expect to get in a car crash but I wear my seatbelt anyway.


So from what I can gather, the only people who really have an excuse for getting an abortion were the one percent who were raped, and the eight percent who don't know any better.

Clearly, you thus acknowledge that you have no excuse for getting in a car crash and you agree that you should be legally barred from getting medical treatment if/when you are in such a crash.

Or are you--gasp--yet another person who's entered this thread without bothering to acquaint yourself with even the most rudimentary aspects of the logic and arguments on this topic?

Indeed.
Like shooting fish in a barrel, eh?

<snip>

So from what I can gather, the only people who really have an excuse for getting an abortion were the one percent who were raped, and the eight percent who don't know any better.

<snip>
Nobody needs an "excuse" to get an abortion, anymore than anyone needs an "excuse" to get any other kind of medical procedure.


Well, you just can't fix stupid.
Indeed.

In general, I suppose one ought to avoid taking cheap shots, but when the target is served up so openly and... pleadingly... it seems almost rude not to go for it. ;)
As always, I apply the Golden Rule. If I were so monumentally rude as to waltz into a discussion of this type and dribble forth poorly-reasoned pronouncements which totally ignored the mountains of sound argument and helpful data provided therein, I would hope to be sharply and harshly corrected before I further humiliated myself. Thus, I treat others as I would hope to be treated. :D

Like shooting fish in a barrel, eh?
In general, I suppose one ought to avoid taking cheap shots, but when the target is served up so openly and... pleadingly... it seems almost rude not to go for it. ;)

Clearly, you thus acknowledge that you have no excuse for getting in a car crash and you agree that you should be legally barred from getting medical treatment if/when you are in such a crash

Right. Because there's no such thing as people who run red lights, people who text while driving, and slippery conditions or ice if you live up North.

So even if everyone drove correctly, there's rain, snow, etc.

Abortions should never be denied, I never said that. I just think that in a more ideal world, people would use birth control more effectively thus eliminating the need for abortions.

But of course, the condom might break, the pill may not work, and there's, well, rape.

Or are you--gasp--yet another person who's entered this thread without bothering to acquaint yourself with even the most rudimentary aspects of the logic and arguments on this topic?

:rolleyes:

A long time ago, there was a poster -- I can't remember his name, it was something like 2+ years ago -- who actually argued at length in favor of forcing all girls and women between the ages of puberty and menopause to register with the government and have to undergo regular state-monitored (with inspectors!) medical exams to make sure whether they were pregnant at any point, and then have to submit to state controls on their movements to ensure they would not sneak off to abort their pregnancies.

He actually was not kidding. He really thought that was something a society should do, even though he admitted it might not be feasible. It sounds ridiculous, even insane, doesn't it? But if you are going to apply what amounts to a morals test to authorize medical treatment of women -- if you are going to deny them medical care and control over their own bodies according to whether you approve of their behavior or not -- then I am afraid that this kind of dystopian vision is something you cannot avoid. How else will you apply such a "test"? How else will you know that the woman is not simply lying when she tells you how she got pregnant or how she runs her life. After all, she knows what you want to hear and she knows what she has to do to get the medical services she needs, so her motivation to say your "magic words" of morality is very strong, regardless of what her real situation is.

Whoa!And I thought I was radical,compared to that guy I'm nothin'!He was obviously insane!Inspecters?What,the hell!.........oh,I think I have a wonderful little gift for him....(:upyours:)......cuz he sure deserves it!


Do you start to see why trying to legislate morality or otherwise control other people's morality is a problem?

By the way, your definition of "floozy" is not something I agree with. I think it is unreasonable and unrealistic, and I further think that the number of sex partners a person has does not in any way reflect on whether they are moral people or not. Do you start to see another problem with applying a morality test to other people's behaviors? Namely, the problem of whose concept of "moral" should hold sway?

Ya,you got me there.Now that I think about it some of my friends are rather promiscuous,but they're still intelligent, and benevolent people.

Whoa!And I thought I was radical,compared to that guy I'm nothin'!He was obviously insane!Inspecters?What,the hell!.........oh,I think I have a wonderful little gift for him....(:upyours:)......cuz he sure deserves it!


Ya,you got me there.Now that I think about it some of my friends are rather promiscuous,but they're still intelligent, and benevolent people.
In truth, I think he was actually a bit crazy, and he's been gone a long time. But his bizarre scenarios were something he constructed quite logically in trying to counter all the realistic objections to his assertion that people should be made to conform to his religion-based views of moral behavior -- particularly the objection that, realistically, it's impossible to MAKE people share your moral beliefs and thus willingly conform to your rules.

Now, when faced with that reality, you, being a reasonable person, consider rethinking your approach. As Leonardo da Vinci said, "If circumstances make it impossible for you to reach your goal according to your plan, find another way to do it." Perhap, it is true that there are other, better, ways to significantly reduce abortion than using the law to ban or restrict it by a kind of force.

But he, being unreasonable, refused to abandon his desire for an authoritarian power to impose the behavior he desired onto people, so he ended up outlining this elaborate, Orwellian-style, totalitarian nightmare. If people would not willingly conform to his rules, then he would force them to, and if there was any doubt about anyone's willingness, he would solve that by defaulting to force over everyone. It was an interesting experiment in what happens when people put ideology ahead of reality, and their own desires ahead of what is good for society.

So only 13 percent of women who use the pill and 14 percent who use the condom use them "correctly?"Among those that got pregnant.

Right. Because there's no such thing as people who run red lights, people who text while driving, and slippery conditions or ice if you live up North.Is that something that gets you barred from being treated in North America? That's horrible!

Although texting and phoning is debatable: The pro-business crowd actually brings forth the occasional CBA that shows that it should be legal, seeing as more revenue is generated from mobile phoning while driving than is lost from the occasional fatality among or serious injury of pedestrians or other drivers.

Quote:
Nobody needs an "excuse" to get an abortion, anymore than anyone needs an "excuse" to get any other kind of medical procedure.

medical procedure! are my ears decieving me!?! :upyours:
abortion is murder after 24 weeks
babies have been born at 24 weeks and lived
you have no right to take another persons life
just because they can't talk doesn't mean they don't have feelings

vote pro-life - your mother did

before you get all outraged you should consider WHY women get abortions after 24 weeks.

go on then, you're a woman, why do you want to commit murder, i mean abortion, after 24 weeks

Quote:
Nobody needs an "excuse" to get an abortion, anymore than anyone needs an "excuse" to get any other kind of medical procedure.

medical procedure! are my ears decieving me!?! :upyours:
abortion is murder after 24 weeks
babies have been born at 24 weeks and lived
you have no right to take another persons life
just because they can't talk doesn't mean they don't have feelings

vote pro-life - your mother did

before you get all outraged you should consider WHY women get abortions after 24 weeks.

abortion is murder after 24 weeks

Abortion after 24 weeks is generally only performed in cases of medical necessity, gross physical or chromosomal problems with the fetus, or fetal death.

vote pro-life - your mother did

Actually, my mother is pro-choice.

Actually, my mother is pro-choice.

she didn't have an abortion though did she, otherwise you wouldn't be taking part in this debate

Actually, my mother is pro-choice.

so was mine.

she didn't have an abortion though did she, otherwise you wouldn't be taking part in this debate

Are you under the impression that everyone who is pro-choice aborts every pregnancy?

she still chose to keep you alive and not abort you though didn't she

for all we know we might have aborted the baby/foetus that could have grown up to solve the problem of resources by solving nuclear fusion

it may seem unlikely to you but you don't know what you've got until it's gone

That's the important word there, sparky. It's about choice.

she still chose to keep you alive and not abort you though didn't she

for all we know we might have aborted the baby/foetus that could have grown up to solve the problem of resources by solving nuclear fusion

it may seem unlikely to you but you don't know what you've got until it's gone

The fact that we could have aborted a baby that could have grown up to do more harm than good kind of cancels out that kind of argument (which is ridiculous in either case)

so was mine.

she still chose to keep you alive and not abort you though didn't she

for all we know we might have aborted the baby/foetus that could have grown up to solve the problem of resources by solving nuclear fusion

it may seem unlikely to you but you don't know what you've got until it's gone

she still chose to keep you alive and not abort you though didn't she

for all we know we might have aborted the baby/foetus that could have grown up to solve the problem of resources by solving nuclear fusion

it may seem unlikely to you but you don't know what you've got until it's gone

no she didnt have a choice. i was born in 1957 well before abortion was legal. there wasnt even reliable contraception.

if she had had a choice she would have had 3 children instead of 7 and i would never have been born. and since i never would have been born, there would have been no "me" to care about it.

Are you under the impression that everyone who is pro-choice aborts every pregnancy?

no obviously not dumbass, if that was the case then your mother couldn't be pro-choice because you would have been aborted a long time ago

if she had had a choice she would have had 3 children instead of 7 and i would never have been born. and since i never would have been born, there would have been no "me" to care about it.

what's that supposed to mean, of course she had a choice:
not have sex 7 times

so what you're basically saying is abort every child because the good ones we abort will be canceled out by the evil ones
this is going to turn into genocide
everyone wants the perfect baby with the exact characteristics they want. we're messing with nature - not a good idea

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_fallacy

You fail. Miserably.

so what you're basically saying is abort every child because the good ones we abort will be canceled out by the evil ones
this is going to turn into genocide
everyone wants the perfect baby with the exact characteristics they want. we're messing with nature - not a good idea

No that is definitely not what i've said. Perhaps you would like to read it again

The fact that we could have aborted a baby that could have grown up to do more harm than good kind of cancels out that kind of argument

so what you're basically saying is abort every child because the good ones we abort will be canceled out by the evil ones
this is going to turn into genocide
everyone wants the perfect baby with the exact characteristics they want. we're messing with nature - not a good idea

no obviously not dumbass, if that was the case then your mother couldn't be pro-choice because you would have been aborted a long time ago

Precisely.

So you admit that:
vote pro-life - your mother did

was a ridiculous comment?

Quote:
Nobody needs an "excuse" to get an abortion, anymore than anyone needs an "excuse" to get any other kind of medical procedure.

medical procedure! are my ears decieving me!?! :upyours:
abortion is murder after 24 weeks
babies have been born at 24 weeks and lived
you have no right to take another persons life
just because they can't talk doesn't mean they don't have feelings

vote pro-life - your mother did

Almost no abortions occur after 24 weeks. (So few abortions occur that late that there aren't good numbers on how many there are, but less than 1.3% occur at 21 weeks or greater. link (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5609a1.htm)) So, right off the bat, thanks for recognizing that about 99% of all abortions are NOT murder.

As to those abortions that may occur at 21 weeks or greater, realize that late-term abortions are already generally illegal. They are allowed only in extreme circumstances like a threat to the health or life of the mother. Often they involve dead or severely deformed fetuses. Surely, you wouldn't forbid the abortion of a dead fetus to save the life of the mother?

Welcome to being pro-choice.

/wave

Another child of a pro-choice woman, here.

My mother is pro-choice, always has been, and has two healthy biological children.

4. While you complain about "groupthink" you keep ignoring the fact that most of us who are pro-choice are already offering to compromise with your view in many ways. Most of agree that late-term abortion should generally be illegal. Almost all abortions occur in the first trimester. We also agree that abortion should be made as rare as possible -- promoting birth control, family planning, etc. We also promote free pre-natal and post-natal care and income assistance to relieve pressures that may cause a woman to feel the need to abort unnecessarily. We agree that abortion should be regulated to ensure it is as safe as possible. The only thing we won't consider is depriving a woman of control over her own body and banning abortion early in the pregnancy. What exactly is the compromise you suggest?This.

Pro-life and pro-choice (personally against abortion, but support a woman's right to choose; what she does with her body is no one's business but her own).

so what you're basically saying is abort every child because the good ones we abort will be canceled out by the evil ones


Or, you know, maybe what's being said is that "might have been a saint" or "might have been a diabolical jerk" is not a good argument for or against abortion.

Quote:
Nobody needs an "excuse" to get an abortion, anymore than anyone needs an "excuse" to get any other kind of medical procedure.

medical procedure! are my ears decieving me!?! :upyours:
Not unless you have your computer set up to recite text to you. Otherwise, it would be your eyes deceiving you -- only they aren't.

abortion is murder after 24 weeks
babies have been born at 24 weeks and lived
There is no such thing as elective abortion after 24 weeks. All such late term abortions are done due to medical necessity. In most cases the condition is such that the fetus will not make it to birth or survive birth anyway. In many such cases, the abortion isn't killing anything. It is just removing what is already a corpse.

you have no right to take another persons life
Wrong. I have the right to take another person's life to preserve my own.

just because they can't talk doesn't mean they don't have feelings
Irrelevant to issues of abortion.

vote pro-life - your mother did
No, she didn't. She chose to have one baby, which just happened to be me. I know for a fact that she aborted one later, accidental pregnancy. (Also, I was born in 1963, before Roe but I happen to have known my mother's doctor (he was mine and my grandmother's and grandfather's doctor too; he delivered both my mother and me), and I know that if she had not wanted to have any babies, he would have helped her abort.

vote pro-life - your mother did

Perhaps you should look up the word "choice" dear. One can choose to not abort. That does not make one pro-life.